Senator Cruz on tax reform: Abolish the IRS

[johnwk]

There you go again, lying about what I have posted and refusing to discuss the topic of the thread which is tax reform. STOP TROLLING THE THREAD

Laughing...I'm responding to your claim that the constitution doesn't authorize an income tax.

I see you are lying again about what I have claimed. Did your mother teach you to lie?

Mama taught me to quote:

Nor did they, by the constitution, authorize an "income tax".

So tell us again how you never claimed that the constitution didn't authorize an income tax.

I need another giggle.

I never claimed that the "constitution didn't authorized an income tax" . What I wrote was "Nor did they __ referring to our Founding Fathers __ by the constitution, authorize an "income tax". And just what is it that they did authorize? Well, let us read what they authorized in crystal clear language as it appears in our Constitution:

"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States"

So, as it turns out, they did not authorize an "income tax". Stop lying about what I have claimed.


JWK

 

[Skylar]

There you go again, lying about what I have posted and refusing to discuss the topic of the thread which is tax reform. STOP TROLLING THE THREAD

Laughing...I'm responding to your claim that the constitution doesn't authorize an income tax.

I see you are lying again about what I have claimed. Did your mother teach you to lie?

Mama taught me to quote:

Nor did they, by the constitution, authorize an "income tax".

So tell us again how you never claimed that the constitution didn't authorize an income tax.

I need another giggle.

I never claimed that the "constitution didn't authorized an income tax" . What I wrote was "Nor did they __ referring to our Founding Fathers __ by the constitution, authorize an "income tax". And just what is it that they did authorize? Well, let us read what they authorized in crystal clear language as it appears in our Constitution:

"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States"

So, as it turns out, they did not authorize an "income tax". Stop lying about what I have claimed.


JWK

"Nor did they __ referring to our Founding Fathers __ by the constitution, authorize an "income tax".

You said, in no uncertain terms, that the constitution doesn't authorize income tax. And you're obviously wrong, as the USSC made clear only 8 years after the ratification of the constitution. And you know you're wrong. How do we know? Because when you quoted the taxation authority of congress, you intentionally left out the word 'Taxes'.

That wasn't accidental. You explicitly omitted it. The Founders didn't.

So, as it turns out, they did not authorize an "income tax". Stop lying about what I have claimed.

Laughing....at least you remembered to include the word 'taxes' this time. Alas, you don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about.

There may, perhaps, be an indirect tax on a particular article, that cannot be comprehended within the description of duties, or imposts, or excises; in such case it will be comprised under the general denomination of taxes. For the term tax is the genus, and includes,

1. Direct taxes.
2. Duties, imposts, and excises.
3. All other classes of an indirect kind, and not within any of the classifications enumerated under the preceding heads.

Hylton v. United States (1796)

'All other classes of an indirect kind' most definitely includes an income tax. Now why would I ignore the USSC, whose ruling came down only 8 years after the Constitution was ratified, which included justices who had been delegates at the constitution convention itself and instead believe you?

There is no reason.

But then, you already knew that too, didn't you John?

 

[Kosh]

There you go again, lying about what I have posted and refusing to discuss the topic of the thread which is tax reform. STOP TROLLING THE THREAD

Laughing...I'm responding to your claim that the constitution doesn't authorize an income tax.

I see you are lying again about what I have claimed. Did your mother teach you to lie?

Mama taught me to quote:

Nor did they, by the constitution, authorize an "income tax".

So tell us again how you never claimed that the constitution didn't authorize an income tax.

I need another giggle.

I never claimed that the "constitution didn't authorized an income tax" . What I wrote was "Nor did they __ referring to our Founding Fathers __ by the constitution, authorize an "income tax". And just what is it that they did authorize? Well, let us read what they authorized in crystal clear language as it appears in our Constitution:

"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States"

So, as it turns out, they did not authorize an "income tax". Stop lying about what I have claimed.


JWK

"Nor did they __ referring to our Founding Fathers __ by the constitution, authorize an "income tax".

You said, in no uncertain terms, that the constitution doesn't authorize income tax. And you're obviously wrong, as the USSC made clear only 8 years after the ratification of the constitution. And you know you're wrong. How do we know? Because when you quoted the taxation authority of congress, you intentionally left out the word 'Taxes'.

That wasn't accidental. You explicitly omitted it. The Founders didn't.

So, as it turns out, they did not authorize an "income tax". Stop lying about what I have claimed.

Laughing....at least you remembered to include the word 'taxes' this time. Alas, you don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about.

There may, perhaps, be an indirect tax on a particular article, that cannot be comprehended within the description of duties, or imposts, or excises; in such case it will be comprised under the general denomination of taxes. For the term tax is the genus, and includes,

1. Direct taxes.
2. Duties, imposts, and excises.
3. All other classes of an indirect kind, and not within any of the classifications enumerated under the preceding heads.

Hylton v. United States (1796)

'All other classes of an indirect kind' most definitely includes an income tax. Now why would I ignore the USSC, whose ruling came down only 8 years after the Constitution was ratified, which included justices who had been delegates at the constitution convention itself and instead believe you?

There is no reason.

But then, you already knew that too, didn't you John?

So are you as a far left drone going to finally admit that Obamacare was the biggest "tax" in history?

 

[johnwk]

You said, in no uncertain terms, that the constitution doesn't authorize income tax.

That is your interpretation of what I wrote. What I actually wrote was "Nor did they __ referring to our Founding Fathers __ by the constitution, authorize an "income tax". Nowhere in our original Constitution can you find the phrase "income tax". What the founders authorized is as follows:

"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States"

So, as it turns out, they did not authorize an "income tax". Stop lying about what I have claimed.


JWK


They are not “liberals”. They are conniving parasites who use the cloak of government force to steal the wealth which wage earners, business and investors have worked to create