What's new
US Message Board ūü¶Ö Political Discussion Forum

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Ted Cruz may not be the constitutional conservative he claims to be

johnwk

Gold Member
Joined
May 24, 2009
Messages
3,438
Reaction score
1,487
Points
200
It is disappointing to see one of our self-anointed "constitutional conservatives", meaning Ted Cruz, is found to fall far short of constitutional conservatism when it comes to tax reform.

Surely a "constitutional conservative" knows that proposing a flat tax on incomes would not close down the IRS as Cruz claims, but more importantly, it perpetuates today's violation of our Constitution which requires any direct tax to be apportioned among the States.

The very purpose of requiring direct taxes to be apportioned was to insure that Congress, if and when it decided to enter the States and tax the citizens directly, the tax would turn out to be an equal per capita tax and not the socialist type of tax which Cruz proposes, which is to seek out and place a larger tax burden upon the most productive members of our society. Cruz's tax plan is more in line with what Bernie Sanders would support than what our founders intentionally rejected.

keep in mind that the rule requiring direct taxes to be apportioned is still very much part of our Constitution and any ‚Äúconstitutional conservative‚ÄĚ knows this.

Shortly after the 16th Amendment was adopted the Court in Eisner v. Macomber 252 U.S. 189, 206 (1920), a case dealing with an income tax and direct vs. indirect taxation, the tax was struck down as being direct and not apportioned. The Court stated:

A proper regard for its genesis, as well as its very clear language, requires also that this amendment shall not be extended by loose construction, so as to repeal or modify, except as applied to income, those provisions of the Constitution that require an apportionment according to population for direct taxes upon property, real and personal. This limitation still has an appropriate and important function, and is not to be overridden by Congress or disregarded by the courts.


--- cut ---

Thus, from every point of view, we are brought irresistibly to the conclusion that neither under the Sixteenth Amendment nor otherwise has Congress power to tax without apportionment a true stock dividend made lawfully and in good faith, or the accumulated profits behind it, as income of the stockholder. The Revenue Act of 1916, insofar as it imposes a tax upon the stockholder because of such dividend, contravenes the provisions of Article I, § 2, cl. 3, and Article I, § 9, cl. 4, of the Constitution, and to this extent is invalid notwithstanding the Sixteenth Amendment.


A few years later in another case dealing with income taxation and direct vs. indirect taxation, in BROMLEY VS MCCAUGHN, 280 U.S. 124 (1929), the Court emphatically stated ‚ÄúAs the present tax is not apportioned, it is forbidden, if direct.‚ÄĚ

And let us not forget that even Justice Roberts stated in the Obamacare case:


The shared responsibility payment is thus not a direct tax that must be apportioned among the several States.


The truth is, Article 1, Section 9, Clause 4 has never been repealed and declares:


No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.

So, how may Congress tax ‚Äúincomes‚ÄĚ without the tax being a direct tax which requires apportionment? The answer to this is found in In Flint v. Stone Tracy Co., 220 U.S. 107, (1911). In Flint the court confirmed Congress could impose an excise tax on the privilege of being a corporation making it an indirect tax and not having to apportion it, and the amount to be paid by each tax payer was measured from the profits realized under the privilege granted by government.


This is how a tax on incomes can be laid without having to apportion the tax ___ the tax is not a generically named ‚Äúincome tax‚ÄĚ which is not mentioned in our Constitution but an excise tax which is one of the specifically named taxes found in our Constitution and does not require apportionment, rather, it requires uniformity throughout the United States when laid and every ‚Äúconstitutional conservative‚ÄĚ ought to know this.

The bottom line is, the 16th Amendment merely confirmed what was found by the Court in Flint, that Congress could lay and collect a tax on income without having to apportion it. However, the amendment by its crystal clear wording did not create a generically named ‚Äúincome tax‚ÄĚ.


Cruz’s tax plan intentionally keeps alive the socialist friendly tax calculated from profits, gains, salaries and other lawfully earned incomes. Real tax reform is found in the Fair Share Balanced Budget Amendment which begins as follows:

“SECTION 1. The Sixteenth Amendment is hereby repealed and Congress is henceforth forbidden to lay ``any`` tax or burden calculated from profits, gains, interest, salaries, wages, tips, inheritances or any other lawfully realized money.


NOTE: these words would return us to our founding father‚Äôs ORIGINAL TAX PLAN as they intended it to operate! They would also end the failed experiment with allowing Congress to lay and collect taxes calculated from lawfully earned "incomes" which now oppresses America‚Äės economic engine and robs the bread which working people have earned when selling their labor!

JWK


‚ÄúHonest money and honest taxation, the Key to America‚Äôs future Prosperity‚Äú ___ from ‚ÄúProsperity Restored by the State Rate Tax Plan‚ÄĚ, no longer in print.
 

SwimExpert

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 26, 2013
Messages
16,247
Reaction score
1,679
Points
280
Surely a "constitutional conservative" knows that proposing a flat tax on incomes would not close down the IRS as Cruz claims, but more importantly, it perpetuates today's violation of our Constitution which requires any direct tax to be apportioned among the States.

Would you PLEASE shut up with this bullshit!
 

martybegan

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2010
Messages
69,882
Reaction score
24,340
Points
2,260
Surely a "constitutional conservative" knows that proposing a flat tax on incomes would not close down the IRS as Cruz claims, but more importantly, it perpetuates today's violation of our Constitution which requires any direct tax to be apportioned among the States.

Would you PLEASE shut up with this bullshit!

Didn't the 16th amendment handle 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.
 
OP
J

johnwk

Gold Member
Joined
May 24, 2009
Messages
3,438
Reaction score
1,487
Points
200
Surely a "constitutional conservative" knows that proposing a flat tax on incomes would not close down the IRS as Cruz claims, but more importantly, it perpetuates today's violation of our Constitution which requires any direct tax to be apportioned among the States.

Would you PLEASE shut up with this bullshit!

Didn't the 16th amendment handle 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.


The 16th Amendment does not declare that "Congress shall have power to lay and collect direct taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration." It merely grants 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 constitution also commands "No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken."

So, how may Congress tax ‚Äúincomes‚ÄĚ without the tax being a direct tax which requires apportionment? The answer to this is found in In Flint v. Stone Tracy Co., 220 U.S. 107, (1911). In Flint the court confirmed Congress could impose an excise tax on the privilege of being a corporation making it an indirect tax and not having to apportion it, and the amount to be paid by each tax payer was measured from the profits realized under the privilege granted by government.


This is how a tax on incomes can be laid without having to apportion the tax ___ the tax is not a generically named ‚Äúincome tax‚ÄĚ which is not mentioned in our Constitution but an excise tax which is one of the specifically named taxes found in our Constitution and does not require apportionment, rather, it requires uniformity throughout the United States when laid and every ‚Äúconstitutional conservative‚ÄĚ ought to know this.

The bottom line is, the 16th Amendment merely confirmed what was found by the Court in Flint, that Congress could lay and collect a tax on income without having to apportion it. However, the amendment by its crystal clear wording did not create a generically named ‚Äúincome tax‚ÄĚ nor does it declare a direct tax may be laid on incomes without apportionment.


JWK



If, by calling a tax indirect when it is essentially direct, the rule of protection could be frittered away, one of the great landmarks defining the boundary between the nation and the states of which it is composed, would have disappeared, and with it one of the bulwarks of private rights and private property. POLLOCK v. FARMERS' LOAN & TRUST CO., 157 U.S. 429 (1895)
 

martybegan

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2010
Messages
69,882
Reaction score
24,340
Points
2,260
Surely a "constitutional conservative" knows that proposing a flat tax on incomes would not close down the IRS as Cruz claims, but more importantly, it perpetuates today's violation of our Constitution which requires any direct tax to be apportioned among the States.

Would you PLEASE shut up with this bullshit!

Didn't the 16th amendment handle 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.


The 16th Amendment does not declare that "Congress shall have power to lay and collect direct taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration." It merely grants 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 constitution also commands "No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken."

So, how may Congress tax ‚Äúincomes‚ÄĚ without the tax being a direct tax which requires apportionment? The answer to this is found in In Flint v. Stone Tracy Co., 220 U.S. 107, (1911). In Flint the court confirmed Congress could impose an excise tax on the privilege of being a corporation making it an indirect tax and not having to apportion it, and the amount to be paid by each tax payer was measured from the profits realized under the privilege granted by government.


This is how a tax on incomes can be laid without having to apportion the tax ___ the tax is not a generically named ‚Äúincome tax‚ÄĚ which is not mentioned in our Constitution but an excise tax which is one of the specifically named taxes found in our Constitution and does not require apportionment, rather, it requires uniformity throughout the United States when laid and every ‚Äúconstitutional conservative‚ÄĚ ought to know this.

The bottom line is, the 16th Amendment merely confirmed what was found by the Court in Flint, that Congress could lay and collect a tax on income without having to apportion it. However, the amendment by its crystal clear wording did not create a generically named ‚Äúincome tax‚ÄĚ nor does it declare a direct tax may be laid on incomes without apportionment.


JWK



If, by calling a tax indirect when it is essentially direct, the rule of protection could be frittered away, one of the great landmarks defining the boundary between the nation and the states of which it is composed, would have disappeared, and with it one of the bulwarks of private rights and private property. POLLOCK v. FARMERS' LOAN & TRUST CO., 157 U.S. 429 (1895)

This is the same acrobatics progressives use to justify things that are in the constitution being ignored. The 16th allows an Income tax, without State apportionment, and congress can pass laws making this so. I don't see where the other view has a leg to stand on.
 

bodecea

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2009
Messages
172,227
Reaction score
35,867
Points
2,180
Location
Will.Trade.Racists.For.Refugees
I knew it was only a matter of minutes before you spammed this here as well as Hannity and god knows where else.....
 

Skylar

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2014
Messages
44,489
Reaction score
10,213
Points
2,030
It is disappointing to see one of our self-anointed "constitutional conservatives", meaning Ted Cruz, is found to fall far short of constitutional conservatism when it comes to tax reform.

Surely a "constitutional conservative" knows that proposing a flat tax on incomes would not close down the IRS as Cruz claims, but more importantly, it perpetuates today's violation of our Constitution which requires any direct tax to be apportioned among the States.

The very purpose of requiring direct taxes to be apportioned was to insure that Congress, if and when it decided to enter the States and tax the citizens directly, the tax would turn out to be an equal per capita tax and not the socialist type of tax which Cruz proposes, which is to seek out and place a larger tax burden upon the most productive members of our society. Cruz's tax plan is more in line with what Bernie Sanders would support than what our founders intentionally rejected.

keep in mind that the rule requiring direct taxes to be apportioned is still very much part of our Constitution and any ‚Äúconstitutional conservative‚ÄĚ knows this.

Shortly after the 16th Amendment was adopted the Court in Eisner v. Macomber 252 U.S. 189, 206 (1920), a case dealing with an income tax and direct vs. indirect taxation, the tax was struck down as being direct and not apportioned. The Court stated:

A proper regard for its genesis, as well as its very clear language, requires also that this amendment shall not be extended by loose construction, so as to repeal or modify, except as applied to income, those provisions of the Constitution that require an apportionment according to population for direct taxes upon property, real and personal. This limitation still has an appropriate and important function, and is not to be overridden by Congress or disregarded by the courts.


--- cut ---

Thus, from every point of view, we are brought irresistibly to the conclusion that neither under the Sixteenth Amendment nor otherwise has Congress power to tax without apportionment a true stock dividend made lawfully and in good faith, or the accumulated profits behind it, as income of the stockholder. The Revenue Act of 1916, insofar as it imposes a tax upon the stockholder because of such dividend, contravenes the provisions of Article I, § 2, cl. 3, and Article I, § 9, cl. 4, of the Constitution, and to this extent is invalid notwithstanding the Sixteenth Amendment.


A few years later in another case dealing with income taxation and direct vs. indirect taxation, in BROMLEY VS MCCAUGHN, 280 U.S. 124 (1929), the Court emphatically stated ‚ÄúAs the present tax is not apportioned, it is forbidden, if direct.‚ÄĚ

And let us not forget that even Justice Roberts stated in the Obamacare case:


The shared responsibility payment is thus not a direct tax that must be apportioned among the several States.


The truth is, Article 1, Section 9, Clause 4 has never been repealed and declares:


No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.

So, how may Congress tax ‚Äúincomes‚ÄĚ without the tax being a direct tax which requires apportionment? The answer to this is found in In Flint v. Stone Tracy Co., 220 U.S. 107, (1911). In Flint the court confirmed Congress could impose an excise tax on the privilege of being a corporation making it an indirect tax and not having to apportion it, and the amount to be paid by each tax payer was measured from the profits realized under the privilege granted by government.


This is how a tax on incomes can be laid without having to apportion the tax ___ the tax is not a generically named ‚Äúincome tax‚ÄĚ which is not mentioned in our Constitution but an excise tax which is one of the specifically named taxes found in our Constitution and does not require apportionment, rather, it requires uniformity throughout the United States when laid and every ‚Äúconstitutional conservative‚ÄĚ ought to know this.

The bottom line is, the 16th Amendment merely confirmed what was found by the Court in Flint, that Congress could lay and collect a tax on income without having to apportion it. However, the amendment by its crystal clear wording did not create a generically named ‚Äúincome tax‚ÄĚ.


Cruz’s tax plan intentionally keeps alive the socialist friendly tax calculated from profits, gains, salaries and other lawfully earned incomes. Real tax reform is found in the Fair Share Balanced Budget Amendment which begins as follows:

“SECTION 1. The Sixteenth Amendment is hereby repealed and Congress is henceforth forbidden to lay ``any`` tax or burden calculated from profits, gains, interest, salaries, wages, tips, inheritances or any other lawfully realized money.


NOTE: these words would return us to our founding father‚Äôs ORIGINAL TAX PLAN as they intended it to operate! They would also end the failed experiment with allowing Congress to lay and collect taxes calculated from lawfully earned "incomes" which now oppresses America‚Äės economic engine and robs the bread which working people have earned when selling their labor!

JWK


‚ÄúHonest money and honest taxation, the Key to America‚Äôs future Prosperity‚Äú ___ from ‚ÄúProsperity Restored by the State Rate Tax Plan‚ÄĚ, no longer in print.

We've had this debate. You lost.

Senator Ted Cruz doubles down on keeping the socialist income tax!

You bizarrely attributed a flat tax to the communist manifesto. Which was gibbering nonsense. You laughably claimed that apportionment was a method of taxation when its a method of distribution. And the system of taxation you claimed the founders favored....capitation....the founders never used to fund the federal government. Most of the founders despised capitation.

Do we really need to do this dance again, John? You know the tune and you know how its going to end.
 

Skylar

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2014
Messages
44,489
Reaction score
10,213
Points
2,030
Surely a "constitutional conservative" knows that proposing a flat tax on incomes would not close down the IRS as Cruz claims, but more importantly, it perpetuates today's violation of our Constitution which requires any direct tax to be apportioned among the States.

Would you PLEASE shut up with this bullshit!

Didn't the 16th amendment handle 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.


The 16th Amendment does not declare that "Congress shall have power to lay and collect direct taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration." It merely grants 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 constitution also commands "No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken."

So, how may Congress tax ‚Äúincomes‚ÄĚ without the tax being a direct tax which requires apportionment? The answer to this is found in In Flint v. Stone Tracy Co., 220 U.S. 107, (1911). In Flint the court confirmed Congress could impose an excise tax on the privilege of being a corporation making it an indirect tax and not having to apportion it, and the amount to be paid by each tax payer was measured from the profits realized under the privilege granted by government.


This is how a tax on incomes can be laid without having to apportion the tax ___ the tax is not a generically named ‚Äúincome tax‚ÄĚ which is not mentioned in our Constitution but an excise tax which is one of the specifically named taxes found in our Constitution and does not require apportionment, rather, it requires uniformity throughout the United States when laid and every ‚Äúconstitutional conservative‚ÄĚ ought to know this.

The bottom line is, the 16th Amendment merely confirmed what was found by the Court in Flint, that Congress could lay and collect a tax on income without having to apportion it. However, the amendment by its crystal clear wording did not create a generically named ‚Äúincome tax‚ÄĚ nor does it declare a direct tax may be laid on incomes without apportionment.


JWK



If, by calling a tax indirect when it is essentially direct, the rule of protection could be frittered away, one of the great landmarks defining the boundary between the nation and the states of which it is composed, would have disappeared, and with it one of the bulwarks of private rights and private property. POLLOCK v. FARMERS' LOAN & TRUST CO., 157 U.S. 429 (1895)

This is the same acrobatics progressives use to justify things that are in the constitution being ignored. The 16th allows an Income tax, without State apportionment, and congress can pass laws making this so. I don't see where the other view has a leg to stand on.

John insists that the 16th amendment doesn't allow for the source of income to be taxed.

Apparently because he says so.

johnwk said:
Additionally, the 16th does not mention "income tax", but rather "taxes upon incomes", and the source of income cannot be taxed!

USMB POLL: Repeal the 16th Amendment (Income Tax)

Its a nonsense argument, of course. But John is a 'true believer'. And every so often vomits up this little rhetorical stomach flu on our board. And all sorts of other boards.

He's a one trick pony. And its not a very good trick.
 

martybegan

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2010
Messages
69,882
Reaction score
24,340
Points
2,260
Surely a "constitutional conservative" knows that proposing a flat tax on incomes would not close down the IRS as Cruz claims, but more importantly, it perpetuates today's violation of our Constitution which requires any direct tax to be apportioned among the States.

Would you PLEASE shut up with this bullshit!

Didn't the 16th amendment handle 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.


The 16th Amendment does not declare that "Congress shall have power to lay and collect direct taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration." It merely grants 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 constitution also commands "No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken."

So, how may Congress tax ‚Äúincomes‚ÄĚ without the tax being a direct tax which requires apportionment? The answer to this is found in In Flint v. Stone Tracy Co., 220 U.S. 107, (1911). In Flint the court confirmed Congress could impose an excise tax on the privilege of being a corporation making it an indirect tax and not having to apportion it, and the amount to be paid by each tax payer was measured from the profits realized under the privilege granted by government.


This is how a tax on incomes can be laid without having to apportion the tax ___ the tax is not a generically named ‚Äúincome tax‚ÄĚ which is not mentioned in our Constitution but an excise tax which is one of the specifically named taxes found in our Constitution and does not require apportionment, rather, it requires uniformity throughout the United States when laid and every ‚Äúconstitutional conservative‚ÄĚ ought to know this.

The bottom line is, the 16th Amendment merely confirmed what was found by the Court in Flint, that Congress could lay and collect a tax on income without having to apportion it. However, the amendment by its crystal clear wording did not create a generically named ‚Äúincome tax‚ÄĚ nor does it declare a direct tax may be laid on incomes without apportionment.


JWK



If, by calling a tax indirect when it is essentially direct, the rule of protection could be frittered away, one of the great landmarks defining the boundary between the nation and the states of which it is composed, would have disappeared, and with it one of the bulwarks of private rights and private property. POLLOCK v. FARMERS' LOAN & TRUST CO., 157 U.S. 429 (1895)

This is the same acrobatics progressives use to justify things that are in the constitution being ignored. The 16th allows an Income tax, without State apportionment, and congress can pass laws making this so. I don't see where the other view has a leg to stand on.

John insists that the 16th amendment doesn't allow for the source of income to be taxed.

Apparently because he says so.

johnwk said:
Additionally, the 16th does not mention "income tax", but rather "taxes upon incomes", and the source of income cannot be taxed!

USMB POLL: Repeal the 16th Amendment (Income Tax)

Its a nonsense argument, of course. But John is a 'true believer'. And every so often vomits up this little rhetorical stomach flu on our board. And all sorts of other boards.

He's a one trick pony. And its not a very good trick.

Kind of like saying the 2nd amendment actually doesn't allow me to keep and bear arms, and NYC is perfectly justified in making me take 6 months and $1000 or so just to keep a revolver in my house.
 

Skylar

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2014
Messages
44,489
Reaction score
10,213
Points
2,030
Would you PLEASE shut up with this bullshit!

Didn't the 16th amendment handle 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.


The 16th Amendment does not declare that "Congress shall have power to lay and collect direct taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration." It merely grants 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 constitution also commands "No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken."

So, how may Congress tax ‚Äúincomes‚ÄĚ without the tax being a direct tax which requires apportionment? The answer to this is found in In Flint v. Stone Tracy Co., 220 U.S. 107, (1911). In Flint the court confirmed Congress could impose an excise tax on the privilege of being a corporation making it an indirect tax and not having to apportion it, and the amount to be paid by each tax payer was measured from the profits realized under the privilege granted by government.


This is how a tax on incomes can be laid without having to apportion the tax ___ the tax is not a generically named ‚Äúincome tax‚ÄĚ which is not mentioned in our Constitution but an excise tax which is one of the specifically named taxes found in our Constitution and does not require apportionment, rather, it requires uniformity throughout the United States when laid and every ‚Äúconstitutional conservative‚ÄĚ ought to know this.

The bottom line is, the 16th Amendment merely confirmed what was found by the Court in Flint, that Congress could lay and collect a tax on income without having to apportion it. However, the amendment by its crystal clear wording did not create a generically named ‚Äúincome tax‚ÄĚ nor does it declare a direct tax may be laid on incomes without apportionment.


JWK



If, by calling a tax indirect when it is essentially direct, the rule of protection could be frittered away, one of the great landmarks defining the boundary between the nation and the states of which it is composed, would have disappeared, and with it one of the bulwarks of private rights and private property. POLLOCK v. FARMERS' LOAN & TRUST CO., 157 U.S. 429 (1895)

This is the same acrobatics progressives use to justify things that are in the constitution being ignored. The 16th allows an Income tax, without State apportionment, and congress can pass laws making this so. I don't see where the other view has a leg to stand on.

John insists that the 16th amendment doesn't allow for the source of income to be taxed.

Apparently because he says so.

johnwk said:
Additionally, the 16th does not mention "income tax", but rather "taxes upon incomes", and the source of income cannot be taxed!

USMB POLL: Repeal the 16th Amendment (Income Tax)

Its a nonsense argument, of course. But John is a 'true believer'. And every so often vomits up this little rhetorical stomach flu on our board. And all sorts of other boards.

He's a one trick pony. And its not a very good trick.

Kind of like saying the 2nd amendment actually doesn't allow me to keep and bear arms, and NYC is perfectly justified in making me take 6 months and $1000 or so just to keep a revolver in my house.

More like insisting that what 'bear arms' means in the 2nd amendment is to swing dismembered appendages.
 

martybegan

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2010
Messages
69,882
Reaction score
24,340
Points
2,260
Didn't the 16th amendment handle this?


The 16th Amendment does not declare that "Congress shall have power to lay and collect direct taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration." It merely grants 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 constitution also commands "No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken."

So, how may Congress tax ‚Äúincomes‚ÄĚ without the tax being a direct tax which requires apportionment? The answer to this is found in In Flint v. Stone Tracy Co., 220 U.S. 107, (1911). In Flint the court confirmed Congress could impose an excise tax on the privilege of being a corporation making it an indirect tax and not having to apportion it, and the amount to be paid by each tax payer was measured from the profits realized under the privilege granted by government.


This is how a tax on incomes can be laid without having to apportion the tax ___ the tax is not a generically named ‚Äúincome tax‚ÄĚ which is not mentioned in our Constitution but an excise tax which is one of the specifically named taxes found in our Constitution and does not require apportionment, rather, it requires uniformity throughout the United States when laid and every ‚Äúconstitutional conservative‚ÄĚ ought to know this.

The bottom line is, the 16th Amendment merely confirmed what was found by the Court in Flint, that Congress could lay and collect a tax on income without having to apportion it. However, the amendment by its crystal clear wording did not create a generically named ‚Äúincome tax‚ÄĚ nor does it declare a direct tax may be laid on incomes without apportionment.


JWK



If, by calling a tax indirect when it is essentially direct, the rule of protection could be frittered away, one of the great landmarks defining the boundary between the nation and the states of which it is composed, would have disappeared, and with it one of the bulwarks of private rights and private property. POLLOCK v. FARMERS' LOAN & TRUST CO., 157 U.S. 429 (1895)

This is the same acrobatics progressives use to justify things that are in the constitution being ignored. The 16th allows an Income tax, without State apportionment, and congress can pass laws making this so. I don't see where the other view has a leg to stand on.

John insists that the 16th amendment doesn't allow for the source of income to be taxed.

Apparently because he says so.

johnwk said:
Additionally, the 16th does not mention "income tax", but rather "taxes upon incomes", and the source of income cannot be taxed!

USMB POLL: Repeal the 16th Amendment (Income Tax)

Its a nonsense argument, of course. But John is a 'true believer'. And every so often vomits up this little rhetorical stomach flu on our board. And all sorts of other boards.

He's a one trick pony. And its not a very good trick.

Kind of like saying the 2nd amendment actually doesn't allow me to keep and bear arms, and NYC is perfectly justified in making me take 6 months and $1000 or so just to keep a revolver in my house.

More like insisting that what 'bear arms' means in the 2nd amendment is to swing dismembered appendages.

Any time one tries to either create something in the constitution, or ignore something in the constitution, damage is done to the document, and the concepts that it stands for.

What he is doing is no different than what progressive do to the 2nd.
 

Skylar

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2014
Messages
44,489
Reaction score
10,213
Points
2,030
The 16th Amendment does not declare that "Congress shall have power to lay and collect direct taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration." It merely grants 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 constitution also commands "No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken."

So, how may Congress tax ‚Äúincomes‚ÄĚ without the tax being a direct tax which requires apportionment? The answer to this is found in In Flint v. Stone Tracy Co., 220 U.S. 107, (1911). In Flint the court confirmed Congress could impose an excise tax on the privilege of being a corporation making it an indirect tax and not having to apportion it, and the amount to be paid by each tax payer was measured from the profits realized under the privilege granted by government.


This is how a tax on incomes can be laid without having to apportion the tax ___ the tax is not a generically named ‚Äúincome tax‚ÄĚ which is not mentioned in our Constitution but an excise tax which is one of the specifically named taxes found in our Constitution and does not require apportionment, rather, it requires uniformity throughout the United States when laid and every ‚Äúconstitutional conservative‚ÄĚ ought to know this.

The bottom line is, the 16th Amendment merely confirmed what was found by the Court in Flint, that Congress could lay and collect a tax on income without having to apportion it. However, the amendment by its crystal clear wording did not create a generically named ‚Äúincome tax‚ÄĚ nor does it declare a direct tax may be laid on incomes without apportionment.


JWK



If, by calling a tax indirect when it is essentially direct, the rule of protection could be frittered away, one of the great landmarks defining the boundary between the nation and the states of which it is composed, would have disappeared, and with it one of the bulwarks of private rights and private property. POLLOCK v. FARMERS' LOAN & TRUST CO., 157 U.S. 429 (1895)

This is the same acrobatics progressives use to justify things that are in the constitution being ignored. The 16th allows an Income tax, without State apportionment, and congress can pass laws making this so. I don't see where the other view has a leg to stand on.

John insists that the 16th amendment doesn't allow for the source of income to be taxed.

Apparently because he says so.

johnwk said:
Additionally, the 16th does not mention "income tax", but rather "taxes upon incomes", and the source of income cannot be taxed!

USMB POLL: Repeal the 16th Amendment (Income Tax)

Its a nonsense argument, of course. But John is a 'true believer'. And every so often vomits up this little rhetorical stomach flu on our board. And all sorts of other boards.

He's a one trick pony. And its not a very good trick.

Kind of like saying the 2nd amendment actually doesn't allow me to keep and bear arms, and NYC is perfectly justified in making me take 6 months and $1000 or so just to keep a revolver in my house.

More like insisting that what 'bear arms' means in the 2nd amendment is to swing dismembered appendages.

Any time one tries to either create something in the constitution, or ignore something in the constitution, damage is done to the document, and the concepts that it stands for.

What he is doing is no different than what progressive do to the 2nd.

The distinction John bizarrely tries to draw between 'income tax' and a 'tax on income' is non-existent. There's a reason why his claims have a perfect record of failure in the courts.

John is used to posting essays. Not debating. When challenged his arguments degenerate into blithering nonsense.

John is used to posting essays. Not debating his claims. When pressed, his claims typically degenerate into blithering nonsense.

His response to post 165 in this thread is a superb example:

Senator Ted Cruz doubles down on keeping the socialist income tax!
 

martybegan

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2010
Messages
69,882
Reaction score
24,340
Points
2,260
This is the same acrobatics progressives use to justify things that are in the constitution being ignored. The 16th allows an Income tax, without State apportionment, and congress can pass laws making this so. I don't see where the other view has a leg to stand on.

John insists that the 16th amendment doesn't allow for the source of income to be taxed.

Apparently because he says so.

johnwk said:
Additionally, the 16th does not mention "income tax", but rather "taxes upon incomes", and the source of income cannot be taxed!

USMB POLL: Repeal the 16th Amendment (Income Tax)

Its a nonsense argument, of course. But John is a 'true believer'. And every so often vomits up this little rhetorical stomach flu on our board. And all sorts of other boards.

He's a one trick pony. And its not a very good trick.

Kind of like saying the 2nd amendment actually doesn't allow me to keep and bear arms, and NYC is perfectly justified in making me take 6 months and $1000 or so just to keep a revolver in my house.

More like insisting that what 'bear arms' means in the 2nd amendment is to swing dismembered appendages.

Any time one tries to either create something in the constitution, or ignore something in the constitution, damage is done to the document, and the concepts that it stands for.

What he is doing is no different than what progressive do to the 2nd.

The distinction John bizarrely tries to draw between 'income tax' and a 'tax on income' is non-existent. There's a reason why his claims have a perfect record of failure in the courts.

Kind of like trying to say I need to be in a militia to keep and bear arms?
 

Skylar

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2014
Messages
44,489
Reaction score
10,213
Points
2,030
John insists that the 16th amendment doesn't allow for the source of income to be taxed.

Apparently because he says so.

Its a nonsense argument, of course. But John is a 'true believer'. And every so often vomits up this little rhetorical stomach flu on our board. And all sorts of other boards.

He's a one trick pony. And its not a very good trick.

Kind of like saying the 2nd amendment actually doesn't allow me to keep and bear arms, and NYC is perfectly justified in making me take 6 months and $1000 or so just to keep a revolver in my house.

More like insisting that what 'bear arms' means in the 2nd amendment is to swing dismembered appendages.

Any time one tries to either create something in the constitution, or ignore something in the constitution, damage is done to the document, and the concepts that it stands for.

What he is doing is no different than what progressive do to the 2nd.

The distinction John bizarrely tries to draw between 'income tax' and a 'tax on income' is non-existent. There's a reason why his claims have a perfect record of failure in the courts.

Kind of like trying to say I need to be in a militia to keep and bear arms?

No, it would be closer to equating 'bearing arms' to 'arming bears'.
 

martybegan

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2010
Messages
69,882
Reaction score
24,340
Points
2,260
Kind of like saying the 2nd amendment actually doesn't allow me to keep and bear arms, and NYC is perfectly justified in making me take 6 months and $1000 or so just to keep a revolver in my house.

More like insisting that what 'bear arms' means in the 2nd amendment is to swing dismembered appendages.

Any time one tries to either create something in the constitution, or ignore something in the constitution, damage is done to the document, and the concepts that it stands for.

What he is doing is no different than what progressive do to the 2nd.

The distinction John bizarrely tries to draw between 'income tax' and a 'tax on income' is non-existent. There's a reason why his claims have a perfect record of failure in the courts.

Kind of like trying to say I need to be in a militia to keep and bear arms?

No, it would be closer to equating 'bearing arms' to 'arming bears'.

Maybe, but enough of hijacking this thread, I can save the 2nd amendment stuff for another one.
 

Skylar

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2014
Messages
44,489
Reaction score
10,213
Points
2,030
johnwk said:
‚Äú[T]his amendment shall not be extended by loose construction, so as to repeal or modify, except as applied to income, those provisions of the Constitution that require an apportionment according to population for direct taxes....This limitation still has an appropriate and important function, and is not to be overridden by Congress or disregarded by the courts.‚ÄĚ

Eisner v. Macomber 252 U.S. 189, 206 (1920),

'Except as it applies to income'. Did you even read the passage you just quoted? Because you clearly didn't read the ruling. As only one sentence before it utterly obliterates your entire line of reasoning:

"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."

As repeatedly held, this did not extend the taxing power to new subjects, but merely removed the necessity which otherwise might exist for an apportionment among the states of taxes laid on income.

Eisner v. Macomber 252 U.S. 189, 206 (1920)

The courts explicitly and without the slightest ambiguity destroy your entire argument. Which you either know, having read the ruling. In which case you explicitly misrepresented the findings of the Eisner court. Or should have known. In which case you're simply not suffeciently informed to discuss this topic intelligently.

Ignorant or intentionally misleading. Pick which.

Oh, and here's the entire ruling for those who want to study up. The Eisner court just destroys, absolutely destroys the claim that the 16th amendment didn't lift the apportionment requirements for taxes on income.

Eisner v. Macomber 252 U.S. 189 (1920)
 

Skylar

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2014
Messages
44,489
Reaction score
10,213
Points
2,030
Johnwk said:
A few years later in another case dealing with income taxation and direct vs. indirect taxation, in BROMLEY VS MCCAUGHN, 280 U.S. 124 (1929), the Court emphatically stated ‚ÄúAs the present tax is not apportioned, it is forbidden, if direct.‚ÄĚ

Wow. Really? Bromley?

Bromley v. McCaughn isn't about income tax. But gift taxes. And gifts aren't recognized as income by the law, nor did anyone in the case argue they were. For crying out loud, the tax was applied to the DONOR. Not the recipient. Thus, what possible relevance does it have to a discussion of whether or not the 16th amendment lifts the apportionment requirements on income?

And nobody argued that the gift tax was income tax. This from the accompanying brief with the ruling:

A tax upon income is a direct tax (Pollock v. Farmer's Loan Trust Co. 157 U.S.) permitted only because the 16th Amendment removed the prohibitions against the levying of that particular tax. Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189.

That the gift tax is not an income tax (is payable by the donor), and is not apportioned, is so obvious as to not require argument.

Mr. Ira Jewell Williams, with whom Messrs. Ira Jewell Williams, Jr., and Francis Shunk Brown were on the brief, for Bromley.

Casetext

And you know ALL of this. You know that Bromley wasn't about income taxes, but gift taxes. You know that Bromley never finds that gift taxes are income. You know your citation has *nothing* to do with your argument. Yet you really hope we don't.

As always, John.....your horseshit argument relies on the ignorance of your audience.
 

SwimExpert

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 26, 2013
Messages
16,247
Reaction score
1,679
Points
280
Surely a "constitutional conservative" knows that proposing a flat tax on incomes would not close down the IRS as Cruz claims, but more importantly, it perpetuates today's violation of our Constitution which requires any direct tax to be apportioned among the States.

Would you PLEASE shut up with this bullshit!

Didn't the 16th amendment handle 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.


The 16th Amendment does not declare that "Congress shall have power to lay and collect direct taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration." It merely grants 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 constitution also commands "No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken."

So, how may Congress tax ‚Äúincomes‚ÄĚ without the tax being a direct tax which requires apportionment? The answer to this is found in In Flint v. Stone Tracy Co., 220 U.S. 107, (1911). In Flint the court confirmed Congress could impose an excise tax on the privilege of being a corporation making it an indirect tax and not having to apportion it, and the amount to be paid by each tax payer was measured from the profits realized under the privilege granted by government.


This is how a tax on incomes can be laid without having to apportion the tax ___ the tax is not a generically named ‚Äúincome tax‚ÄĚ which is not mentioned in our Constitution but an excise tax which is one of the specifically named taxes found in our Constitution and does not require apportionment, rather, it requires uniformity throughout the United States when laid and every ‚Äúconstitutional conservative‚ÄĚ ought to know this.

The bottom line is, the 16th Amendment merely confirmed what was found by the Court in Flint, that Congress could lay and collect a tax on income without having to apportion it. However, the amendment by its crystal clear wording did not create a generically named ‚Äúincome tax‚ÄĚ nor does it declare a direct tax may be laid on incomes without apportionment.


JWK



If, by calling a tax indirect when it is essentially direct, the rule of protection could be frittered away, one of the great landmarks defining the boundary between the nation and the states of which it is composed, would have disappeared, and with it one of the bulwarks of private rights and private property. POLLOCK v. FARMERS' LOAN & TRUST CO., 157 U.S. 429 (1895)

You're a fucking idiot.

Also, Cruz is bad.
 

Skylar

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2014
Messages
44,489
Reaction score
10,213
Points
2,030
For anyone interested in this topic, pay very close attention to this passage from the Eisner ruling:

"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."

As repeatedly held, this did not extend the taxing power to new subjects, but merely removed the necessity which otherwise might exist for an apportionment among the states of taxes laid on income.

Eisner v. Macomber 252 U.S. 189, 206 (1920)

As John will never acknowledge it exists, and ignores it completely. Despite the fact that it explicitly and utterly refutes his claim that the 16th amendment didn't remove the apportionment requirements for taxes on incomes.
 

ūüí≤ Amazon Deals ūüí≤

Forum List

Top