Why do Americans feel like taxes are somehow the government robbing them of money?

[Ame®icano]

Do they use our roads?
Do they use our police?
Do they enjoy the rights they have gained to work and get paid well?
Do they like eating clean food and drinking clean water?

Then no, it is not robbing anything from them as they're enjoying the benefits of paying it.

Should those who are not paying for any of it, enjoy the same benefits?

 

[danielpalos]

Do they use our roads?
Do they use our police?
Do they enjoy the rights they have gained to work and get paid well?
Do they like eating clean food and drinking clean water?

Then no, it is not robbing anything from them as they're enjoying the benefits of paying it.

You obviously don't make enough money to realize how much the government takes from some people.

A single dollar of a person's income is taxed over and over again via income tax, social security tax, property tax, sales tax, gasoline tax, state and federally.

Then when you die they take 40% of your lifetime earnings from you.

It's bullshit.

let's abolish our drug war to lower our tax burden.

Making more junkies so they can be as stupid as you will cost us more money in the long run

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

What we do now is insane, we punish users for crimes directly related to their addiction, allow a billion dollar black market to exist, and pretend "Just say NO!" is an effective tool to mitigate experimentation.

The war on drugs is a failure.

That's right we punish those who break the law.... parents should raise their children better

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

why not abolish those social laws and let parents raise their children?

 

[danielpalos]

Do they use our roads?
Do they use our police?
Do they enjoy the rights they have gained to work and get paid well?
Do they like eating clean food and drinking clean water?

Then no, it is not robbing anything from them as they're enjoying the benefits of paying it.

Should those who are not paying for any of it, enjoy the same benefits?

Who isn't paying for any of it?

 

[Ame®icano]

Do they use our roads?
Do they use our police?
Do they enjoy the rights they have gained to work and get paid well?
Do they like eating clean food and drinking clean water?

Then no, it is not robbing anything from them as they're enjoying the benefits of paying it.

Should those who are not paying for any of it, enjoy the same benefits?

Who isn't paying for any of it?

Playing dumb with me?

 

[ScienceRocks]

Do they use our roads?
Do they use our police?
Do they enjoy the rights they have gained to work and get paid well?
Do they like eating clean food and drinking clean water?

Then no, it is not robbing anything from them as they're enjoying the benefits of paying it.

Should those who are not paying for any of it, enjoy the same benefits?

Who isn't paying for any of it?

These people don't want us to be a first world nation with a respectable government. They don't want to pay for it as they live out in the woods in a single wide.

 

[danielpalos]

Do they use our roads?
Do they use our police?
Do they enjoy the rights they have gained to work and get paid well?
Do they like eating clean food and drinking clean water?

Then no, it is not robbing anything from them as they're enjoying the benefits of paying it.

Should those who are not paying for any of it, enjoy the same benefits?

Who isn't paying for any of it?

Playing dumb with me?

nope; it is just that some on the right, like to plead so specially.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

I just can‘t seem to understand why so many Americans are extremely sensitive when it comes to taxes, and often oppose strongly of a progressive tax system.
At least personally, I think of taxes as giving back to the society and community, and I enjoy many of the governments services every day.
Also. I don‘t understand the objection towards a progressive taxation system

I don't think of it as "giving" at all.

Its a tax. Government requires taxes to function. Without government, property has no practical meaning. Without property, we can only be hunter/gatherers. I'd rather not.

 

[Flash]

[

The social contract is a liberal myth.

It is a way to justify the thievery. Another way of the welfare queens saying "you owe it to me".

 

[Flash]

[


These people don't want us to be a first world nation with a respectable government. They don't want to pay for it as they live out in the woods in a single wide.

How "respectable" is a combined government that takes over 40% of the GNP?

How "respectable" is a government that is almost $19 trillion in debt?

How "respectable" is a government with several million regulations on the books that controls the daily lives of most Americans?

How "respectable" is a third generation welfare queen taking money that they did not earn?

 

[Flash]

[

I don't think of it as "giving" at all.

Its a tax. Government requires taxes to function. Without government, property has no practical meaning. Without property, we can only be hunter/gatherers. I'd rather not.

Very few people would not have a problem if the government only taxed for the few necessary government functions like defense, courts, police etc.

It is when you tax to take money away from the people that earned it to give away to those that didn't earn it to create a welfare state that many people don't accept.

Also we don't need to pay taxes to the government to pay for things that we should pay for ourselves like retirement, healthcare and a safety net of welfare. The government needs to stay out of the business of being the nanny state and the astronomical cost associated with doing that.

 

[Wyatt earp]

I just can‘t seem to understand why so many Americans are extremely sensitive when it comes to taxes, and often oppose strongly of a progressive tax system.
At least personally, I think of taxes as giving back to the society and community, and I enjoy many of the governments services every day.
Also. I don‘t understand the objection towards a progressive taxation system

I don't think of it as "giving" at all.

Its a tax. Government requires taxes to function. Without government, property has no practical meaning. Without property, we can only be hunter/gatherers. I'd rather not.

So is that a code for you wanting a 90% tax on the highest bracket?

And don't give me a fair share since the top already pays what? 80% of all the federal taxes...

I would ask Mathew but he just dodges the question.

 

[PredFan]

Because it's the government robbing me of money.

Robbery is a crime. Your comment goes beyond ignorance, it's stupid.

Because YOU say so? You're funny.

 

[PredFan]

Because it's the government robbing me of money.

Robbery is a crime. Your comment goes beyond ignorance, it's stupid.

Yes, but not all crimes are illegal.

Don't bother. He's not smart enough to understand. Just point at him and laugh.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I just can‘t seem to understand why so many Americans are extremely sensitive when it comes to taxes, and often oppose strongly of a progressive tax system.
At least personally, I think of taxes as giving back to the society and community, and I enjoy many of the governments services every day.
Also. I don‘t understand the objection towards a progressive taxation system

You hear that sort of thing from conservatives because they are addicted to turning every issue into a hysterical hyperbole fest.

 

[danielpalos]

I just can‘t seem to understand why so many Americans are extremely sensitive when it comes to taxes, and often oppose strongly of a progressive tax system.
At least personally, I think of taxes as giving back to the society and community, and I enjoy many of the governments services every day.
Also. I don‘t understand the objection towards a progressive taxation system

I don't think of it as "giving" at all.

Its a tax. Government requires taxes to function. Without government, property has no practical meaning. Without property, we can only be hunter/gatherers. I'd rather not.

So is that a code for you wanting a 90% tax on the highest bracket?

And don't give me a fair share since the top already pays what? 80% of all the federal taxes...

I would ask Mathew but he just dodges the question.

I believe our wars on crime, drugs, poverty, and terror should require wartime tax rates or be abolished.

 

[The Rabbi]

The Holocaust was a legal action too.

Our founders that signed the constitutions believed in taxes...So you'd pretty much have to be a archaist to believe as you do.

Our Founders put an income tax in the Constitution? WOw, who knew?
You are totally clueless. Give up.

One can argue that Art. I, sec. 8 clause 1 authorizes a tax on income; but the specific law allowing for an income tax is in the 16th Amendment.

So the Constitution authorized an income tax, even though it didnt, and this is why the 16th Amendment was necessary.
I know logic isnt your strong point. You proved it again.

You don't have an honest bone in your body. Art I, sec. 8 clause 1 gives the Congress the power to tax. It does not specify the type or form of tax; thus, I can infer an income tax and you and the other lunatics can infer all taxes are a form of theft.

You are as ignorant of the Constitution as you are of anythng else, except cock-sucking. Article 9 states
No capitation, or other direct, tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken.
That prohibits an income tax, which is why the 16thA was necessary.

 

[MathewSmith]

There are so many industries that live and die on the tax code that you’ll never get real reform. Realtors, bankers, solar power companies, automakers, manufacturers of all types, contractors, etc. all have their hands in the tax code.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Our founders that signed the constitutions believed in taxes...So you'd pretty much have to be a archaist to believe as you do.

Our Founders put an income tax in the Constitution? WOw, who knew?
You are totally clueless. Give up.

One can argue that Art. I, sec. 8 clause 1 authorizes a tax on income; but the specific law allowing for an income tax is in the 16th Amendment.

So the Constitution authorized an income tax, even though it didnt, and this is why the 16th Amendment was necessary.
I know logic isnt your strong point. You proved it again.

You don't have an honest bone in your body. Art I, sec. 8 clause 1 gives the Congress the power to tax. It does not specify the type or form of tax; thus, I can infer an income tax and you and the other lunatics can infer all taxes are a form of theft.

You are as ignorant of the Constitution as you are of anythng else, except cock-sucking. Article 9 states
No capitation, or other direct, tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken.
That prohibits an income tax, which is why the 16thA was necessary.

It is clause 4 of sec. 9 of art. I; not Art. 9

This clause is one more example of ambiguity within the COTUS. You may believe you have posted the absolute truth by simply quoting a passage, that only proves how biased and ignorant you are:

http://www.taxhistory.org/thp/readings.nsf/ArtWeb/2B34C7FBDA41D9DA8525730800067017?OpenDocument

Now, knowing you will not read this link, I will state the legal arguments written over the centuries on taxes and the meaning of clause 4 are as confusing to the average reader as they are to the various learned justices who tackled the issue. The one sure conclusion is this: Income taxes are not Robbery and only a vastly ignorant person or a liar will argue that they are. So, please continue to do so.

 

[The Rabbi]

Our Founders put an income tax in the Constitution? WOw, who knew?
You are totally clueless. Give up.

One can argue that Art. I, sec. 8 clause 1 authorizes a tax on income; but the specific law allowing for an income tax is in the 16th Amendment.

So the Constitution authorized an income tax, even though it didnt, and this is why the 16th Amendment was necessary.
I know logic isnt your strong point. You proved it again.

You don't have an honest bone in your body. Art I, sec. 8 clause 1 gives the Congress the power to tax. It does not specify the type or form of tax; thus, I can infer an income tax and you and the other lunatics can infer all taxes are a form of theft.

You are as ignorant of the Constitution as you are of anythng else, except cock-sucking. Article 9 states
No capitation, or other direct, tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken.
That prohibits an income tax, which is why the 16thA was necessary.

It is clause 4 of sec. 9 of art. I; not Art. 9

This clause is one more example of ambiguity within the COTUS. You may believe you have posted the absolute truth by simply quoting a passage, that only proves how biased and ignorant you are:

http://www.taxhistory.org/thp/readings.nsf/ArtWeb/2B34C7FBDA41D9DA8525730800067017?OpenDocument

Now, knowing you will not read this link, I will state the legal arguments written over the centuries on taxes and the meaning of clause 4 are as confusing to the average reader as they are to the various learned justices who tackled the issue. The one sure conclusion is this: Income taxes are not Robbery and only a vastly ignorant person or a liar will argue that they are. So, please continue to do so.

You are an idiot.
Abraham Lincoln instituted an income tax during the Civil War. The SUpreme Court declared it unconstitutional in Pollock.

 

[Wry Catcher]

One can argue that Art. I, sec. 8 clause 1 authorizes a tax on income; but the specific law allowing for an income tax is in the 16th Amendment.

So the Constitution authorized an income tax, even though it didnt, and this is why the 16th Amendment was necessary.
I know logic isnt your strong point. You proved it again.

You don't have an honest bone in your body. Art I, sec. 8 clause 1 gives the Congress the power to tax. It does not specify the type or form of tax; thus, I can infer an income tax and you and the other lunatics can infer all taxes are a form of theft.

You are as ignorant of the Constitution as you are of anythng else, except cock-sucking. Article 9 states
No capitation, or other direct, tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken.
That prohibits an income tax, which is why the 16thA was necessary.

It is clause 4 of sec. 9 of art. I; not Art. 9

This clause is one more example of ambiguity within the COTUS. You may believe you have posted the absolute truth by simply quoting a passage, that only proves how biased and ignorant you are:

http://www.taxhistory.org/thp/readings.nsf/ArtWeb/2B34C7FBDA41D9DA8525730800067017?OpenDocument

Now, knowing you will not read this link, I will state the legal arguments written over the centuries on taxes and the meaning of clause 4 are as confusing to the average reader as they are to the various learned justices who tackled the issue. The one sure conclusion is this: Income taxes are not Robbery and only a vastly ignorant person or a liar will argue that they are. So, please continue to do so.

You are an idiot.
Abraham Lincoln instituted an income tax during the Civil War. The SUpreme Court declared it unconstitutional in Pollock.

Ad hominems don't refute the evidence posted in the link you did not read.

From the link:

"Reviewing Supreme Court cases from 1796 through 1988 leads to the inevitable conclusion that Pollock represented a sharp change in direction for the Supreme Court. For almost a century the case law had provided that only capitations and land taxes were direct taxes, and that any tax that would create highly unjust results on apportionment was not a direct tax. Pollock was at odds with that doctrine. A later Supreme Court clearly considered Pollock a mistake."