Income tax

[RetiredGySgt]

I did not like paying Federal Income tax when I had to ( all my income now is tax exempt) but this ludicrous claim the federal Government does not have the authority to tax is getting old.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071005/ap_on_re_us/tax_evaders_arrested

The 16th Amendment to the Constitution allows taxation on income, clarifying the power and specificly granted the power to Congress.

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.

http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_Am16.html

 

[Gunny]

I did not like paying Federal Income tax when I had to ( all my income now is tax exempt) but this ludicrous claim the federal Government does not have the authority to tax is getting old.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071005/ap_on_re_us/tax_evaders_arrested

The 16th Amendment to the Constitution allows taxation on income, clarifying the power and specificly granted the power to Congress.



http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_Am16.html

Is the 16th Amendment itself Constitutional? The original Constitution allows for the owning of slaves, so it is not an infallible document.

And yeah, I have a BIG problem with my taxes supporting the bureaucracy in DC, and or ensuring some do-nothing has high-speed internet and cable TV.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Is the 16th Amendment itself Constitutional? The original Constitution allows for the owning of slaves, so it is not an infallible document.

And yeah, I have a BIG problem with my taxes supporting the bureaucracy in DC, and or ensuring some do-nothing has high-speed internet and cable TV.

Of course it is Constitutional , any amendment ratified by the people becomes binding and part of the Constitution. And slavery had to be barred BY the Constitution since it was allowed by it prior.

http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A5.html

, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution,

the only permanent exception being that no State may be denied its right to 2 Senators.

 

[Gunny]

Of course it is Constitutional , any amendment ratified by the people becomes binding and part of the Constitution. And slavery had to be barred BY the Constitution since it was allowed by it prior.

http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A5.html



the only permanent exception being that no State may be denied its right to 2 Senators.

Wonder how a vote to repeal it would go nowadays since I'd bet money "the people" had no idea what kind of monster they were creating. Probably got some "it's only for this or that" line to get it passed.

 

[Little-Acorn]

Gunny, that would be like coming off heroin "cold turkey". The shock would be so great, it would kill the patient. Even though the drug certainly isn't good for the patient in the first place.

Rather than repealing the 16th, I'd suggest repealing automatic tax withholding. The people paying taxes would see their paychecks jump immediately... but then they'd get a NASTY surprise on April 15th, in the form of a bill from gov.org for the full amount of that year's taxes. They would then know exactly how much all this wonderful govenment is really costing them.

I can think of no better way to reduce taxes, than this kind of "full disclosure" to the people. You can bet they'd examine VERY carefully, and liberal attempts to raise taxes starting at that point.

BTW, I believe the anti-income-tax people's current gripe, isn't that the 16th is unconstitutional. Thei gripe is that the laws subsequently passed by Congress that actually establishes the income tax (the 16th just PERMITS income taxes, it didn't actually create one, Congress must do that), charged incoe taxes only Americans living overseas. It did not impose them on American citizens living here. Congress could change that (completely legally) by simply passing another law saying "all Americans are subject to this tax"... but their point is, COngress never did that.

They haven't a chance. Congress created the IRS, and the IRS charged the tax. Further, it's been going on for many decades now, and judges will rule that possession is 9/10 of the law, if you will.

I don't like income taxes any more than you do. But the people insisting they are illegal, are pretty much wrong.

 

[jillian]

Is the 16th Amendment itself Constitutional? The original Constitution allows for the owning of slaves, so it is not an infallible document.

And yeah, I have a BIG problem with my taxes supporting the bureaucracy in DC, and or ensuring some do-nothing has high-speed internet and cable TV.

If something is in the Constitution, it is, by definition, Constitutional (meaning authorized by the Constitution). It doesn't mean it's right, wrong or indifferent, it's just an outline for the minimum protections to which individual rights are entitled and the maximum power which can be exercised by government.

 

[jasendorf]

Wonder how a vote to repeal it would go nowadays since I'd bet money "the people" had no idea what kind of monster they were creating. Probably got some "it's only for this or that" line to get it passed.

My biggest problem with federal taxation is that such a disproportionate amount of it goes back to red states. Red states are the welfare states of the land with blue states being their benefactors.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxdata/show/266.html

 

[indago]

GunnyL wrote:

Wonder how a vote to repeal it would go nowadays since I'd bet money "the people" had no idea what kind of monster they were creating. Probably got some "it's only for this or that" line to get it passed.

Congressman George W. Fithian of Illinois declared: "An income tax places burdens upon accumulated wealth, where they can be most easily borne. It is right, because it exacts tribute of accumulation and not of endeavor. ...The artisan who goes forth to labor for his daily bread must pay upon the tools he works with; the brickmason upon his trowel, the carpenter upon his chisel and plane, the wood-chopper upon his ax, the miner upon his pick, and so on through all the list of wage-earners, yet none escape taxes upon what they eat and wear."

Congressman T. J. Hudson of Kansas declared: "an income tax will not touch a hair upon the head of a laboring man in the United States."

Mr. James C. Carter, an attorney, and a most respected member of the bar of New York, arguing before the Supreme Court of the United States for his client, Continental Trust Co., and for the governments' new income tax, 28 Stat. 509, 553, summed up the efforts of the lawmakers: "The view taken by the Congress which passed the tax law in question is plain on its face. The object was to redress in some degree the flagrant inequality by which the great mass of the people were made to furnish nearly all the revenue, and leave the very wealthy classes to furnish very little of it in comparison with their means. Of course, nothing, therefore, was to be taken from the wages of labor, or from very small incomes proceeding from other sources than labor."

The "income tax" was enacted to lighten the burden of taxation upon the working man. But there are those who not only pay a tax upon their tools, clothing, and etc., they also pay a tax that "was enacted to lighten the burden of taxation upon the working man", and further, they argue vehemently in favor of doing so, and belittle the enlightened.

 

[Threedee]

I believe the "argument" about the 16th Amendment centers around whether or not it was ever legitimately ratified. There are two ways to ratify, and obviously it met one of the two standards, but that has never prevented a few losers from denying the facts.

 

[workingevolutio]

Well, no one likes income tax. No one likes taxes in general. But taxes are pretty much a sure thing--kind of like death (sorry to reference the old, cliche phrase, but it's true). You have to pay them. Is it in the constitution? Yeah. Is the constitution fallible? Yeah. But does it matter? Taxation has been around for a long, long time. There's no point in trying to fight it now. The least you could do is move to a state that doesn't have a state income tax. At least you'll beat it part way, right?

 

[indago]

workingevolutio wrote:

Well, no one likes income tax. No one likes taxes in general. But taxes are pretty much a sure thing--kind of like death (sorry to reference the old, cliche phrase, but it's true). You have to pay them. Is it in the constitution? Yeah. Is the constitution fallible? Yeah. But does it matter? Taxation has been around for a long, long time. There's no point in trying to fight it now. The least you could do is move to a state that doesn't have a state income tax. At least you'll beat it part way, right?

You sound as though all government has to do is lay a tax and everybody just falls to their knees and pays. You may not believe this, but there are restrictions on how government taxes.

 

[Paulie]

Wonder how a vote to repeal it would go nowadays since I'd bet money "the people" had no idea what kind of monster they were creating. Probably got some "it's only for this or that" line to get it passed.

It was passed during x-mas break when most members of congress were away and didn't even vote, just like the Federal Reserve Act, the Patriot Act, and any other legislation that would otherwise be CONSIDERED unconstitutional by congress as a whole.

Our tax dollars pay back our debt to the Fed...we pay taxes on the money we earn, and then we pay taxes AGAIN via inflation, as the Fed "adjusts" their monetary output and our dollar continues to lose it's value. Inflation certainly isn't hurting the bankers, but it's KILLING the middle class. You can see it happening right in front of your eyes when you look around you. The housing market crisis is one very good example.

The wording in the amendment is the key: "without apportionment".

And RGS...Why is it that the IRS has never officially commented on the "law"? Why have lawyers challenged it and WON in a court of law? And why wouldn't the media COVER such a thing?

You say you're a conservative...if you really were, then you would be against many of the bureaucracies in Federal government that require all of this money to be taken from us.

We don't need MOST of them. But as a people, we've been slowly programmed to believe we do.

Why do we need a federal department of education? So Bush can pass bills like No Child Left Behind? Fuck that.

There's no reason the federal government should be setting precedence in this country's education sector. Local municipalities and districts, and the states they are in, should be the one's in control. Not Washington.

 

[indago]

Paulitics wrote:

The wording in the amendment is the key: "without apportionment".

The sixteenth amendment was before the Supreme Court of the United States nearly a hundred years ago. 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.


-

 

[M14 Shooter]

My biggest problem with federal taxation is that such a disproportionate amount of it goes back to red states. Red states are the welfare states of the land with blue states being their benefactors.
http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxdata/show/266.html

I thought you liberals were OK with redistributing wealth...?
You know -- from the haves to the have nots...?

 

[M14 Shooter]

It was passed during x-mas break when most members of congress were away and didn't even vote, just like the Federal Reserve Act, the Patriot Act, and any other legislation that would otherwise be CONSIDERED unconstitutional by congress as a whole..

If you keep repeating the lie, people will believe it?

Aside from the fact that the 16th had to be ratified by the states, making the circumstances of it passing Congress irrelevant...

Patriot act:
Passed 357/66 (10/24/01) and 98/1 (10/25/01)
Signed into law 10/26/2001

When was Christmas moved to October?

 

[Shogun]

I thought you liberals were OK with redistributing wealth...?
You know -- from the haves to the have nots...?

indeed, if social programs were to be cut off the conservatives might just find support in at least 3 southern states shrinking year by year...

I don't care that red states get help. Their political position is terribly ironic though.