No More Entitled to Tax Deductions Than Food Stamps

[FA_Q2]

Thank you, T.



In July 1863, during the Civil War, President Abraham Lincoln and Congress created the office of Commissioner of Internal Revenue and enacted a temporary income tax to pay war expenses (see Revenue Act of 1862). The position of Commissioner exists today as the head of the Internal Revenue Service.
The Revenue Act of 1862 was passed as an emergency and temporary war-time tax. It copied a relatively new British system of income taxation, instead of trade and property taxation.

Ol' "Honest" Abe, hunh?

It is why the concept of a temporary tax is asinine as congress never lets go if income sources that it has.

To mouse: you have failed to comment on the point about the fourth and fifth amendments. They do not fit into your idea that you don't have a right to your untaxed income. It is clear that you actually do have such a right.

 

[The T]

Ol' "Honest" Abe, hunh?

It is why the concept of a temporary tax is asinine as congress never lets go if income sources that it has.

To mouse: you have failed to comment on the point about the fourth and fifth amendments. They do not fit into your idea that you don't have a right to your untaxed income. It is clear that you actually do have such a right.

Congresscritter never let go of a damned thing and why they added the 16th when the 'progressives' under Wilson were in power...the other insult was the Federal Reserve, and the 17th Amendments...ALL of which need to be repealed.

 

[The T]

Thank you, T.



In July 1863, during the Civil War, President Abraham Lincoln and Congress created the office of Commissioner of Internal Revenue and enacted a temporary income tax to pay war expenses (see Revenue Act of 1862). The position of Commissioner exists today as the head of the Internal Revenue Service.
The Revenue Act of 1862 was passed as an emergency and temporary war-time tax. It copied a relatively new British system of income taxation, instead of trade and property taxation.

Ol' "Honest" Abe, hunh?

For someone that suspended writ of Habeus...

 

[Cecilie1200]

Ol' "Honest" Abe, hunh?

It is why the concept of a temporary tax is asinine as congress never lets go if income sources that it has.

To mouse: you have failed to comment on the point about the fourth and fifth amendments. They do not fit into your idea that you don't have a right to your untaxed income. It is clear that you actually do have such a right.

He hasn't actually commented on ANY point, that I've noticed. All he's done is cut and paste himself and tell us how brilliant he is.

 

[The T]

Ol' "Honest" Abe, hunh?

It is why the concept of a temporary tax is asinine as congress never lets go if income sources that it has.

To mouse: you have failed to comment on the point about the fourth and fifth amendments. They do not fit into your idea that you don't have a right to your untaxed income. It is clear that you actually do have such a right.

He hasn't actually commented on ANY point, that I've noticed. All he's done is cut and paste himself and tell us how brilliant he is.

To whom is 'he'?

 

[Cecilie1200]

It is why the concept of a temporary tax is asinine as congress never lets go if income sources that it has.

To mouse: you have failed to comment on the point about the fourth and fifth amendments. They do not fit into your idea that you don't have a right to your untaxed income. It is clear that you actually do have such a right.

He hasn't actually commented on ANY point, that I've noticed. All he's done is cut and paste himself and tell us how brilliant he is.

To whom is 'he'?

Whatshisnose, the OP. I don't remember his freaking name. The one you were telling had "failed to comment" on something. He's failed to comment on EVERYTHING, except his own assumed cleverness.

 

[FA_Q2]

It is why the concept of a temporary tax is asinine as congress never lets go if income sources that it has.

To mouse: you have failed to comment on the point about the fourth and fifth amendments. They do not fit into your idea that you don't have a right to your untaxed income. It is clear that you actually do have such a right.

He hasn't actually commented on ANY point, that I've noticed. All he's done is cut and paste himself and tell us how brilliant he is.

To whom is 'he'?

Mouse.
See the part where I said:
TO mouse

And then Cecilie responded as they were her points originally. I just wanted to see if he was ever going to address them.



Edit; damn - beat me to it Cecilie
Now my snarkyness is wasted

 

[Toro]

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 Constitution does not give unlimited power to the federal government. Thus, it is highly unlikely that the Supreme Court would ever agree that the government can take every dime of your income.

 

[buckeye45_73]

"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?

Hey dumbass, they acutally passed an AMendment to allow income taxes, they didnt just "find" it in your "living" document, they actually had to do it constitutionally, YAY.
how did we get welfare, from FDR threatening then stacking the court, NOT the constitutional way.

 

[Cecilie1200]

He hasn't actually commented on ANY point, that I've noticed. All he's done is cut and paste himself and tell us how brilliant he is.

To whom is 'he'?

Mouse.
See the part where I said:
TO mouse

And then Cecilie responded as they were her points originally. I just wanted to see if he was ever going to address them.



Edit; damn - beat me to it Cecilie
Now my snarkyness is wasted

Oh, excuse me. That was YOUR post I responded to, not T's. I misread the quote names.

 

[The T]

He hasn't actually commented on ANY point, that I've noticed. All he's done is cut and paste himself and tell us how brilliant he is.

To whom is 'he'?

Mouse.
See the part where I said:
TO mouse

And then Cecilie responded as they were her points originally. I just wanted to see if he was ever going to address them.



Edit; damn - beat me to it Cecilie
Now my snarkyness is wasted

No worries.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

It’s more a matter of established and settled case law concerning the interpretation of the Amendment. See: Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad Co. (1916), Eisner v. Macomber (1920). Indeed, in these and other cases the Court has held that the 16th Amendment didn’t ‘create’ a new authority to tax income but rather redefined the understanding of ‘income’ and the requirement that a tax on income be per an “apportionment according to population for direct taxes upon property, real and personal."

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.

No, you’re not wrong, the 10th Amendment doesn’t have anything to do with the issue. The Court has never interpreted the 10th Amendment to restrict Congress’ authority to regulate commerce nor does it authorize the states to ignore or ‘nullify’ Federal law. See: US v. Darby (1941).

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.

It has noting to do with ‘leftists’ or ‘twisting,’ it has only to do with accepted and settled case law.

To mouse: you have failed to comment on the point about the fourth and fifth amendments. They do not fit into your idea that you don't have a right to your untaxed income. It is clear that you actually do have such a right.

The 4th Amendment concerns ‘takings’ in the context of a criminal prosecution, as where one’s property might be used as evidence against a citizen – not that the property is ‘taken’ and used as part of Federal expenditure.

The 5th Amendment requires due process of law with regard to the taking of real property, not in general the taking of income. In any event, the government met the due process requirement with the amendment process and subsequent litigation after the ratification of the Amendment. One may today file suit in Federal court arguing the taxing of your income is ‘un-Constitutional,’ the suit will fail, of course, but one has the right to avail himself due process nonetheless.