Profit Question

[Paulie]

RGS...

READ the 8th section of Article I. You and the other loons that claim the Government has no power to tax income have a major reading comprehension problem.

The Government could tax the air you breath if they thought the people would not vote them out for doing it. The fact that "we the people" have NOT eliminated Income Tax in almost 100 years is proof that, at least so far, the majority agree it is fair and reasonable and further that it is in fact a power clearly given the Federal Government.

I disagree. Most people complain about their taxes. That most don't do anything about it, is because most feel they have no power personally. Apathy holds us back as a civilization, from making REAL political changes. I've heard enough people say their voice won't make a difference, to realize at least THAT.

We lived without an income tax for 137 years. It wasn't until the Federal Reserve Act, where paper money was to be printed out of thin air, that extra taxation became necessary. Add in all the entitlement spending, the worldwide military empire, and decades of people becoming accustomed to the tax, that it now SEEMS necessary to pay an income tax....when in reality, a proper amount of spending restraints (the ones YOU advocate for, due to unconstitutionality), would ease the burden back to not needing the income tax anyway.

You argue against the unconstitutional spending, when it is THAT SPENDING that is requiring us to pay the income taxes that you are advocating.

You don't see a paradox there?

 

[Care4all]

Wrong again. Your logic is faulty. No person is required to pay more than any other person in the exact same situation as them self, no matter where they live.

Further we have the 16th which eliminates any doubt about section 9's meaning. So it is a moot point.

I suggest you research the Amendment. It was the opinion of most legal minds and Constitutional scholars at the time and since that the 16th was unneeded.

But again moot point. The 16th exists. It was duly ratified and became a part of the Constitution per the requirements of said Constitution. It has never been repealed by another Amendment.

I strongly suggest you get educated before you start refusing to pay your income tax.

Ohhhh, I pay every penny due and some I would suppose because of missing legal write offs....no worries on that end.....

Though doesn't it seem unconstitutional that they make us sign our IRS tax return and then can use our own form against us? Seems like we shouldn't have to fill out the irs form if the 5th amendment was really taken in to consideration?

How about THAT angle???

Care

 

[Ravi]

Care, what do you mean they can use the form against us?

 

[Care4all]

Care, what do you mean they can use the form against us?

Well, let's say you mess up and miss something that you owe taxes on....you have sent in your Irs tax return of which you signed verifying they are the truth, but you missed something....

they can take your irs form that you filled out, and use it against you....to me that is like you are being forced to sign a form that may be used against you in a criminal court...so it seems like you are in "essence" made to testify against yourself, or forced to incriminate yourself, even if by accident....

Seems to me that the Irs return, which you filled out, should not be used as evidence against you in a court of law if you claim the 5th with it?

 

[Ravi]

The statement reads something along the lines of "to the best of my knowledge." I don't think they can use that as evidence that you purposely defrauded the government.

 

[Paulie]

Haven't heard a peep out of RGS since my last 2 attempts to get an answer from him.

Most specifically, I'd like to know:

You argue against the unconstitutional spending, when it is THAT SPENDING that is requiring us to pay the income taxes that you are advocating.

You don't see a paradox there?

 

[indago]

Ravir wrote:

The statement reads something along the lines of "to the best of my knowledge." I don't think they can use that as evidence that you purposely defrauded the government.

It also says: "Under the penalties of perjury..."

Don't you believe in Article Four of the Bill of Rights?



-

 

[Ravi]

Ravir wrote:

It also says: "Under the penalties of perjury..."

Don't you believe in Article Four of the Bill of Rights?



-

That doesn't cancel out to the best of my knowledge.
We weren't talking about purposely defrauding the government but rather accidentally screwing up on your return.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Haven't heard a peep out of RGS since my last 2 attempts to get an answer from him.

Most specifically, I'd like to know:

Taxes are legal, income tax is legal. And I have responded on this thread since your post. You don't want to hear or see. You have the Cart before the Horse.

Ohh by the way in the mid 90's when we had surplus which party was it that had no desire to return said surplus to the people?

 

[Paulie]

Taxes are legal, income tax is legal. And I have responded on this thread since your post. You don't want to hear or see. You have the Cart before the Horse.

Ohh by the way in the mid 90's when we had surplus which party was it that had no desire to return said surplus to the people?

I haven't yet argued the legality in this thread. I'm arguing the morality. You're dodging for some reason.

It's ridiculous to complain about over-spending, as you often do here, and then subsequently try and justify the taxes that are directly collected to support said spending.

If we cut spending back to constitutional levels, as YOU have personally advocated and argued for on here, we would not need the income tax. We probably wouldn't need a host of other taxes, either. But primarily, if one needs to go, it should be the one that rapes your money from you that you put most of your blood, sweat, and tears into: the income tax.

And I'm not sure what the purpose of the question was, about which party chose not to return the surplus to the people. If I had to answer that, I'd say both parties are equally to blame. Neither one really cares about you or I, anyway.

Besides, you wouldn't expect fiscal liberals to give you back their spending cash, would you?

 

[AtlasShrieked]

R
We lived without an income tax for 137 years. It wasn't until the Federal Reserve Act, where paper money was to be printed out of thin air, that extra taxation became necessary.

I can't believe not one person called you on this.

The first Federal income tax was imposed (under Article I, section 8, clause 1 of the U.S. Constitution) during the Civil War, then again in the 1890s, and again after the Sixteenth Amendment was ratified in 1913. Current income taxes are imposed under these constitutional provisions and various sections of Subtitle A of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, including 26 U.S.C. § 1 (imposing income tax on the taxable income of individuals, estates and trusts) and 26 U.S.C. § 11 (imposing income tax on the taxable income of corporations).

wikipedia

 

[AtlasShrieked]

I haven't yet argued the legality in this thread. I'm arguing the morality.
If we cut spending back to constitutional levels,

arguing the morality while being ethically untruthful.

and what is a constitutional level of spending? does such a thing actually exist?

 

[AtlasShrieked]

point of interest:

Ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment

In response, Congress proposed the Sixteenth Amendment (ratified by the requisite number of states in 1913[3]), which states:

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 Supreme Court in Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad, 240 U.S. 1 (1916), indicated that the amendment did not expand the federal government's existing power to tax income (meaning profit or gain from any source) but rather removed the possibility of classifying an income tax as a direct tax on the basis of the source of the income. The Amendment removed the need for the income tax to be apportioned among the states on the basis of population. Income taxes are required, however, to abide by the law of geographical uniformity.

Some tax protesters and others opposed to income taxes cite what they contend is evidence that the Sixteenth Amendment was never "properly ratified," based in large part on materials sold by William J. Benson.

In December of 2007, Benson's "Defense Reliance Package" containing his non-ratification argument which he offered for sale on the internet, was ruled by a federal court to be a "fraud perpetrated by Benson" that had "caused needless confusion and a waste of the customers' and the IRS' time and resources."[4] The court stated: "Benson has failed to point to evidence that would create a genuinely disputed fact regarding whether the Sixteenth Amendment was properly ratified or whether United States Citizens are legally obligated to pay federal taxes."[5] See also Tax protester constitutional arguments.

whoever posted that the amendment was never ratified should be horsewhipped. spreading false info like this that could harm others is immoral and unethical and pretty sh!tty

 

[AtlasShrieked]

So Without The 16th Amendment Which Was Never Ratified, (was It?) An Imposed Income Tax Would Not Be Approportionate And Uniformed... Would It Be?

Why Was The 16th Amendment Needed?

falsehood!!!!!!! Moonbat Alert!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Care4all]

WHY is it that "income" is considered "profits" when it comes to businesses but "income" for the individual IS NOT CONSIDERED in that manner at all?

As example: IF 10% of the money that a good solid company makes is considered their profit.....then they are taxed on this amount ONLY.

But with us individuals, EVERYTHING we bring in as income is taxed(minus a small deduction)....NOT JUST what we have left over after we have paid the electric, paid the food, paid the oil bill, paid our insurances, paid our rent, paid for our clothes etc?

In other words, why is it that all that we make as individuals considered a PROFIT, while all that businesses make IS NOT, and businesses are allowed to deduct ALL of their EXPENSES before they get to the sum that the gvt considers profit, but we as individuals do NOT get to deduct our monthly expenses before the gvt considers our income profit?

I thought the 16th amendment said it gave the gvt the power to tax us all on our income, which is defined as PROFIT, not ALL OF OUR WAGES?

care

 

[editec]

The argument is not can the Government tax , it is what is reasonable for the Government to tax.

Exactly

The argument that taxation is unconstitutional is absurd.

Of course the argument can be made that the rate of taxes is too high, or that we are spending the money foolishly, but to suggest that a modern government in the 21st century doesn't have the right to tax the people in order to run the nation is more than just a tad ridiculous.

It is as ridiculous as the theory that a flat tax is more moral than a graduated tax because then everyone pays the same rate of taxes.

Using that childish logic, the only moral taxation would be the taxation where everyone pays the exact same amount.

When one's moral convictions (however idealistic and noble) fly in the face of the reality that the application of that morality principle can't possibly work, then its time to step away from those childish moral convictions and attempt to find a system that can actually work.

 

[indago]

AtlasShrieked posted:

point of interest:

Ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment

In response, Congress proposed the Sixteenth Amendment (ratified by the requisite number of states in 1913[3]), which states:

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 Supreme Court in Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad, 240 U.S. 1 (1916), indicated that the amendment did not expand the federal government's existing power to tax income (meaning profit or gain from any source) but rather removed the possibility of classifying an income tax as a direct tax on the basis of the source of the income. The Amendment removed the need for the income tax to be apportioned among the states on the basis of population. Income taxes are required, however, to abide by the law of geographical uniformity.

And that wasn't what was written in Brushaber at all. Mr. Brushaber was a stockholder in the Union Pacific Railroad Company, and he filed the lawsuit to try to stop the company from paying the new "income tax" because if they did his dividends would be reduced.

The Solicitor General for the government, in an amicus curiae brief, had made the argument: "The Sixteenth Amendment removed the restriction of apportionment as to such income taxes as before were subject thereto." The Court, in their opinion, in which there was no dissent, and noting this "confusion", declared this to be an "erroneous assumption" on the part of the government, and "wholly without foundation". The Court declared that "it was settled that the provisions of the Sixteenth Amendment conferred no new power of taxation"; and that the amendment simply prohibited the income tax from being taken from the category of indirect taxation, and being placed into the category of a direct tax.

It was also explained that the Congress of the United States had no intention of destroying the two great classes of taxation by the wording of the Sixteenth Amendment, but placed an income tax into the category of taxation in which it inherently belonged; the indirect class, or excise, and because the tax is not apportioned, nor subject to the census or enumeration, it is an excise tax, a tax upon the exercise of privileges, such taxes not being subject to the condition of apportionment to the States.

Will the subterfuge and deceit never end...

 

[Paulie]

I can't believe not one person called you on this.

wikipedia

You are aware of course, that those income taxes were ruled unconstitutional, due to the fact that they were not apportioned among the several states?

Why then, would I include unconstitutional taxation when making my point? It is moot.

As far as constitutional spending, and your question about what that means...it means spending on what the constitution allows for. Our current federal entitlement spending is by no means constitutional, unless you believe that "provide for the general welfare of the United States" means spend Trillions of dollars giving free money to people who have the ability to earn it themselves.

And you have the audacity to make your username a play on words of an Ayn Rand work.

'Fuck outta here, dude.

 

[Zoomie1980]

No shit. That's why I'm making the argument about wage tax. It is unreasonable to take money from me when I traded an equal amount of labor to obtain that money. It would be no different if I changed your spark plugs and you mowed my lawn in return. Neither of us gained, because each of us had to give something up...either our time and labor, or money out of our pockets.

For almost 150 years this country got by on what is essentially tariffs. It should do so again. There is nor more fair tax than a consumption based tax. But at the same time, there nothing easier to corrupt via black markets.

 

[AtlasShrieked]

You are aware of course, that those income taxes were ruled unconstitutional, due to the fact that they were not apportioned among the several states?

Why then, would I include unconstitutional taxation when making my point? It is moot.

As far as constitutional spending, and your question about what that means...it means spending on what the constitution allows for. Our current federal entitlement spending is by no means constitutional, unless you believe that "provide for the general welfare of the United States" means spend Trillions of dollars giving free money to people who have the ability to earn it themselves.

And you have the audacity to make your username a play on words of an Ayn Rand work.

'Fuck outta here, dude.

I could have sworn you were about to argue the legality of the 'income tax' and that my dear friends is hooey!


and you can argue....argue anything you want. just remember, you do NOT get to judge what is and is not constitutional. you get to argue...with opinion, not matter how wrong that opinion may be.