No More Entitled to Tax Deductions Than Food Stamps

[The T]

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.

Very true. And until the Congress starts cutting...we will remain where we are and worse.

 

[BakshisMouse]

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.

If they taxed all of our money, they would probably get there even faster than what you estimate because no one is going to do shit if all of their efforts are sucked up by the government.

Tax revenues would shrink to basically zero.

The only thing preventing this is the power of the people.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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 ******* point!

Do you have any idea what the **** 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?

We do not normally write laws for the purpose of stating the painfully obvious, nor to affirm things which existed to begin with. This is like saying, "Show me the law that says citizens of the United States are entitled to not have government agents shoot them on sight, just for the hell of it".

Nevertheless, because our Founding Generation realized that there were government-worshipping halfwits like you even in their time, they gave us the Ninth Amendment to the Constitution, just for the purpose of informing idiots like you that the people of the United States are presumed to have rights well above and beyond what is affirmed in the Constitution (rights are affirmed by the Constitution, not granted, because they are presumed to have been granted by our Creator, and thus predate the formation of the US government).

 

[BakshisMouse]

Do you have any idea what the **** 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?

We do not normally write laws for the purpose of stating the painfully obvious, nor to affirm things which existed to begin with. This is like saying, "Show me the law that says citizens of the United States are entitled to not have government agents shoot them on sight, just for the hell of it".

Nevertheless, because our Founding Generation realized that there were government-worshipping halfwits like you even in their time, they gave us the Ninth Amendment to the Constitution, just for the purpose of informing idiots like you that the people of the United States are presumed to have rights well above and beyond what is affirmed in the Constitution (rights are affirmed by the Constitution, not granted, because they are presumed to have been granted by our Creator, and thus predate the formation of the US government).

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.

^^^^
More pertinent than ever.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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 **** 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.

Well, this brings us to your basic misunderstanding of the English language. A tax, by definition, is a PORTION of one's income, or wealth, or whatever it is that's being taxed. One hundred percent would, therefore, not be a tax. Which means the Amendment you cite does not give the government the power to confiscate all of anyone's income or wealth, and therefore does not negate the basic right to ownership of one's income and wealth which is protected by the Ninth and Tenth Amendments.

There is a bigger misunderstanding here, though, and that is your misunderstanding of our government and its purpose and how it came to be. More than probably any other government in the history of humanity, ours exists solely for the purpose of serving the people of the United States. It has no purpose or right to exist beyond that service. It does not derive its power from "divine right", as has been claimed by numerous monarchies, nor does it derive its power from conquest and oppression. The government of the United States is granted its power by its people, who retain the ultimate power of government in their own persons. Understand that: WE grant things to the government; it does not grant things to us.

Yes, I understand that we have allowed this pure and basic truth of who and what we are as a nation to become obscured by the socialist and utopian fantasies of a lot of fools and poltroons who would prefer to live in a nation where they are treated like retarded children rather than free men and women, but that does not mean that we should abandon our roots to that obscuring. It means instead that we should clear all of that away and return to those roots.

 

[BakshisMouse]

Yup. 10th Amendment to the US Constitution.
Now shut the **** 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.

Well, this brings us to your basic misunderstanding of the English language. A tax, by definition, is a PORTION of one's income, or wealth, or whatever it is that's being taxed. One hundred percent would, therefore, not be a tax. Which means the Amendment you cite does not give the government the power to confiscate all of anyone's income or wealth, and therefore does not negate the basic right to ownership of one's income and wealth which is protected by the Ninth and Tenth Amendments.

There is a bigger misunderstanding here, though, and that is your misunderstanding of our government and its purpose and how it came to be. More than probably any other government in the history of humanity, ours exists solely for the purpose of serving the people of the United States. It has no purpose or right to exist beyond that service. It does not derive its power from "divine right", as has been claimed by numerous monarchies, nor does it derive its power from conquest and oppression. The government of the United States is granted its power by its people, who retain the ultimate power of government in their own persons. Understand that: WE grant things to the government; it does not grant things to us.

Yes, I understand that we have allowed this pure and basic truth of who and what we are as a nation to become obscured by the socialist and utopian fantasies of a lot of fools and poltroons who would prefer to live in a nation where they are treated like retarded children rather than free men and women, but that does not mean that we should abandon our roots to that obscuring. It means instead that we should clear all of that away and return to those roots.

Let's say the tax was 99%. Would it then be any more valid?

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

Coming from you, that means less than nothing. "Oh, look, a completely insane dipshit without two functioning brain cells to rub together thinks I'm smart!" Thanks, but that's an "honor" I can do without.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Still pissing off arrogant middle-class assholes.

More like pissing off anyone who thinks excessive stupidity should be a criminal offense.

There is nothing impressive about being offensive. Pimply-faced teenagers in Goth makeup manage it all the time; nominal adults should strive a bit beyond adolescence.

 

[The T]

Still pissing off arrogant middle-class assholes.

More like pissing off anyone who thinks excessive stupidity should be a criminal offense.

There is nothing impressive about being offensive. Pimply-faced teenagers in Goth makeup manage it all the time; nominal adults should strive a bit beyond adolescence.

And Idiots that have avies of Flying RATS.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

If they taxed all of our money, they would probably get there even faster than what you estimate because no one is going to do shit if all of their efforts are sucked up by the government.

Tax revenues would shrink to basically zero.

The only thing preventing this is the power of the people.

Which your half-assed attempts at being the cleverest guy in the room - "Look, I found something NO ONE ELSE ever thought of!" - would completely negate, were they real and not the figment of whatever drug hallucination you're currently experiencing.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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

We do not normally write laws for the purpose of stating the painfully obvious, nor to affirm things which existed to begin with. This is like saying, "Show me the law that says citizens of the United States are entitled to not have government agents shoot them on sight, just for the hell of it".

Nevertheless, because our Founding Generation realized that there were government-worshipping halfwits like you even in their time, they gave us the Ninth Amendment to the Constitution, just for the purpose of informing idiots like you that the people of the United States are presumed to have rights well above and beyond what is affirmed in the Constitution (rights are affirmed by the Constitution, not granted, because they are presumed to have been granted by our Creator, and thus predate the formation of the US government).

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.

^^^^
More pertinent than ever.

It's not hard to be "more pertinent" than your comments were before, since they were the reeking droppings of a diseased mind long since curdled when you first made them.

Nevertheless, they in fact have not improved with age, nor do the maggots crawling upon them add to their luster.

Do see if you can pull a few moments of sobriety together and actually address the points I made, since I did you the immense courtesy of treating your babblings as though they were actual, rational discourse.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

Well, this brings us to your basic misunderstanding of the English language. A tax, by definition, is a PORTION of one's income, or wealth, or whatever it is that's being taxed. One hundred percent would, therefore, not be a tax. Which means the Amendment you cite does not give the government the power to confiscate all of anyone's income or wealth, and therefore does not negate the basic right to ownership of one's income and wealth which is protected by the Ninth and Tenth Amendments.

There is a bigger misunderstanding here, though, and that is your misunderstanding of our government and its purpose and how it came to be. More than probably any other government in the history of humanity, ours exists solely for the purpose of serving the people of the United States. It has no purpose or right to exist beyond that service. It does not derive its power from "divine right", as has been claimed by numerous monarchies, nor does it derive its power from conquest and oppression. The government of the United States is granted its power by its people, who retain the ultimate power of government in their own persons. Understand that: WE grant things to the government; it does not grant things to us.

Yes, I understand that we have allowed this pure and basic truth of who and what we are as a nation to become obscured by the socialist and utopian fantasies of a lot of fools and poltroons who would prefer to live in a nation where they are treated like retarded children rather than free men and women, but that does not mean that we should abandon our roots to that obscuring. It means instead that we should clear all of that away and return to those roots.

Let's say the tax was 99%. Would it then be any more valid?

No, for the reasons that I stated previously and you cravenly refused to respond to, preferring instead to merely repeat yourself and tell us how brilliant you had been.

When you get around to addressing any point I have ever made, you will have earned the right to fire questions at me and demand answers. Until then, every post you make that does NOT address my points will merely be you shouting, "I'm a ******* moron and a coward! Hey, look over here! I can dish out the adolescent rudeness, but I'm incapable of debating like an adult! Mock me and laugh at me!"

I shall wait to see which you choose.

 

[hortysir]

Who created the IRS and gave them authority?

 

[The T]

Who created the IRS and gave them authority?

IRS

 

[hortysir]

Who created the IRS and gave them authority?

IRS

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.

 

[The T]

Who created the IRS and gave them authority?

IRS

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.

 

[slackjawed]

I read this thread all the way through. I feel like I just watched a couple retards being reined in by their handlers.
I must admit while I was amused I am more than a little scared of how our schools are educating our children.

 

[The T]

I read this thread all the way through. I feel like I just watched a couple retards being reined in by their handlers.
I must admit while I was amused I am more than a little scared of how our schools are educating our children.

Especially when you considerthe Statist Flying RAT that started it.

He didn't want to be taught...he ran like a coward.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I read this thread all the way through. I feel like I just watched a couple retards being reined in by their handlers.
I must admit while I was amused I am more than a little scared of how our schools are educating our children.

They aren't. I think that's a big part of the problem. People like to OP desperately want to appear smart and clever, and simply do not have the tools required for the job.

 

[hortysir]

IRS

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?