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

[TakeAStepBack]

The constitution needed to be amended in order to provide a direct income taxation in 1913. The founders saw it the same way I do - as immoral, as unethical and ultimately economic slavery.

Oh please, slaves are NOT free to leave. You are. And stop hiding behind the 'Founders'


sheehs!

Right, because we didn't have communities before direct income taxation. Decent troll though. C-

 

[TakeAStepBack]

The constitution needed to be amended in order to provide a direct income taxation in 1913. The founders saw it the same way I do - as immoral, as unethical and ultimately economic slavery.

Oh please, slaves are NOT free to leave. You are. And stop hiding behind the 'Founders'


sheehs!

Free to leave? Like I do not have to pay the government to take any of my property from the nation?

OK troll though. D+

 

[Dante]

The constitution needed to be amended in order to provide a direct income taxation in 1913. The founders saw it the same way I do - as immoral, as unethical and ultimately economic slavery.

Oh please, slaves are NOT free to leave. You are. And stop hiding behind the 'Founders'


sheehs!

Right, because we didn't have communities before direct income taxation. Decent troll though. C-

communities get to decide HOW, WHO, and WHY to tax,

get IT?

 

[Dante]

The constitution needed to be amended in order to provide a direct income taxation in 1913. The founders saw it the same way I do - as immoral, as unethical and ultimately economic slavery.

Oh please, slaves are NOT free to leave. You are. And stop hiding behind the 'Founders'


sheehs!

Free to leave? Like I do not have to pay the government to take any of my property from the nation?

OK troll though. D+

Stop working. GO underground. Sell your belongings and move to the Moon. Not many people would notice you were missing

 

[TakeAStepBack]

The constitution needed to be amended in order to provide a direct income taxation in 1913. The founders saw it the same way I do - as immoral, as unethical and ultimately economic slavery.

Oh please, slaves are NOT free to leave. You are. And stop hiding behind the 'Founders'


sheehs!

Free to leave? Like I do not have to pay the government to take any of my property from the nation?

OK troll though. D+

Stop working. GO underground. Sell your belongings and move to the Moon. Not many people would notice you were missing

F-
Terrible. Not going to bother again, Dainte.

 

[Skylar]

Excise taxes are far less nefarious. Direct taxation is both immoral and unethical.

Why is direct taxation 'immoral and unethical'? Explain it to us

Because direct taxation lives under the assumption that the government owns you, owns your productivity and provides you with the ability to keep some of what you produce - a percentage.

No it doesn't. Its a tax on your increase. Not on you personally. If it were on you, you'd owe it even if you lost money that year. Instead, its a tax that applies only when you've made money. Only when you've seen profit. When you're more capable of paying. And with progressive taxation, the more you're able to pay, the higher the tax.

Ensuring that those who are unable to pay or who would barely getting by are those least impacted. If you've had a bad year and lost money, you pay no income taxes at all. If you're unemployed, you pay no income taxes at all. If you were sick or disable and unable to work, you pay no taxes at all. Its a tax that doesn't kick you while you're down. Making income taxes one of the more moral and ethical tax systems ever devised.

A head tax would be closer to what you're talking about. Where you owe money to the government each year in the same amount, regardless of your situation. And even an head tax (called a capitation tax by the founders) wasn't forbidden or even discouraged by the founders. They simply wanted to make sure that if such a tax was paid per head, that it was accurately based on how many heads there were. That's why direct taxes were tied to the census.

The constitution needed to be amended in order to provide a direct income taxation in 1913. The founders saw it the same way I do - as immoral, as unethical and ultimately economic slavery.

No it didn't. Income taxes have always been constitutional. What the 16th amendment did was lift apportionment requirements. Read the constitution; it doesn't forbidden any direct tax.

"No capitation, or other direct, tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken."

Capituation Clause, US Constitution

It simply places apportionment restrictions upon them. The 16th lifted those restrictions. It created no new taxation authority.

Capitation taxes were a common revenue generating tool in the era of the founders. The founders themselves levied direct taxes quite regularly, applying capitation style taxes to property, slaves, individual houses, or sometimes whole estates. And those were paid regardless of if the property owners financial situation. Income taxes in comparison explicitly take the user's ability to pay into account.

And to be clear, the founders most definitely didn't see it the way you do.

So, the real question is how is direct taxation ethical or moral, not how is it not.

I've already explained how its not. And how income tax at least, is an explicitly moral and ethical system that takes into account bad circumstances and one's ability to pay the tax. Which is why it varies with one's financial success or failure, one's ability to work or not.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

No it doesn't. Its a tax on your increase. Not on you personally.

It's a tax on your productivity. Not your increase. Regardless of that fact, it is theft. The founders did not use un-apportioned taxes on a regular basis. Property tax, tax on holdings is far different than a direct tax to productivity.

You can think what you want, but saying it's ethical to steal directly from someones hands un-apportioned is economic slavery. YMMV.

 

[Contumacious]

Excise taxes are far less nefarious. Direct taxation is both immoral and unethical.

Why is direct taxation 'immoral and unethical'? Explain it to us

As an avowed socialist you will never understand that taxation is theft. From your standpoint the government has the right to confiscate 100% of our income. From your standpoint we only have those rights which are discretionary.

**** you then.

.

 

[Skylar]

It's a tax on your productivity. Not your increase. Regardless of that fact, it is theft. The founders did not use un-apportioned taxes on a regular basis. Property tax, tax on holdings is far different than a direct tax to productivity.

No, its a tax on your increase. If you were extremely productive and made a good no one wanted to buy.....you wouldn't pay a penny in income taxes. Its only when you can sell the product and make a profit that you are subject to the tax.

If you improved your home, beautified your land, planted fruit trees, added a vegetable garden and were a productive as a hive of bees, you wouldn't pay a single penny of income tax. As none of that is increase. Though its all productivity.

And the courts found that taxes on properties were direct taxes long before they found that taxes on income were.

You can think what you want, but saying it's ethical to steal directly from someones hands un-apportioned is economic slavery. YMMV.

Your reasons for income tax being unethical were simply wrong. You misunderstood the 16th amendment, had a vast misconception on the founders view of direct taxes, misunderstood the constitution which explicitly allows for direct taxation, and misunderstood what income tax actually applies to. Assuming it was your 'productivity' rather than your increase.

Your entire basis of argument was wrong. While my argument of the morality and ethical nature of income tax remains unchallenged and pristinely intact. Income tax remains a method of taxation that takes into account your ability to pay. It applies only when you've had increase. You don't have to pay it if you've come on hard times, like unemployment or disability. If you're poor and barely getting by your burden if far far less than it would be if you were more successful.

By every moral or ethical standard, Income tax is one of the most moral and ethical systems of revenue generation devised. If you disagree, you'll need a firm foundation of evidence and reason. So far, your every assertion on the matter has been factually invalid.

 

[Skylar]

Excise taxes are far less nefarious. Direct taxation is both immoral and unethical.

Why is direct taxation 'immoral and unethical'? Explain it to us

As an avowed socialist you will never understand that taxation is theft. From your standpoint the government has the right to confiscate 100% of our income. From your standpoint we only have those rights which are discretionary.

**** you then.

.

Cont, you don't know what a socialist is. To you its a random pejorative you apply to anyone who doesn't think exactly like you do. I've never 'avowed' support of any particular political or economic philosophy. Let alone socialism.

You couldn't even comment in a germane fashion when you did talk of taxes. As income tax isn't a seizure of property. Its a tax on increase. If you own a home but don't work for the year, you don't pay income tax.

If you're going to offer us useless overgeneralizations and cartoon stereotypes, at least pick one that's relevant to the discussion.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

By every moral or ethical standard, Income tax is one of the most moral and ethical systems of revenue generation devised.

I disagree entirely. I'm not going to rehash this idea. YOu go right for a goods maker and skip over the fact that people trade their time/productivity for compensation. Which is directly taken from them by the government. Then they step out into the world of commerce, where indirect taxation is at every turn.

To buy food.
To buy gas.
Transportation
Housing
And the list is endless.

You are more than welcome to believe it is ethical and moral to steal right from someones bread basket, but I do not see it that way.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Its a tax on increase. If you own a home but don't work for the year, you don't pay income tax.

No, but you pay a property tax. Every year and they want it whether you have it or not. Or they take your home. If you work, they will take off the top of that productivity and THEN want the property tax too.

If you cant see how this is a serf system, I can't help you.

 

[Contumacious]

Excise taxes are far less nefarious. Direct taxation is both immoral and unethical.

Why is direct taxation 'immoral and unethical'? Explain it to us

As an avowed socialist you will never understand that taxation is theft. From your standpoint the government has the right to confiscate 100% of our income. From your standpoint we only have those rights which are discretionary.

**** you then.

.

Cont, you don't know what a socialist is. To you its a random pejorative you apply to anyone who doesn't think exactly like you do. I've never 'avowed' support of any particular political or economic philosophy. Let alone socialism.

An individual who is for Constitutional Government , an American who supports individual rights and freedom , would have already studied our history and would know that the founding Fathers were adamantly opposed to direct taxation. You haven't.

You dared ask "WHY ARE DIRECT TAXES ARE IMMORAL AND UNETHICAL". Certified documentation from the states who voted on the amendment were ignored by you because they were rejected by the federal "courts" without an explanation. And because the states themselves are not opposing the sixteenth "amendment" only mere commoners who from your standpoint are idiots and should be crushed like maggots.

In Federalist #22 Alexander Hamilton explains that direct taxes are subject to abuse while excise taxes are not.

 

[Contumacious]

Excise taxes are far less nefarious. Direct taxation is both immoral and unethical.

Why is direct taxation 'immoral and unethical'? Explain it to us

As an avowed socialist you will never understand that taxation is theft. From your standpoint the government has the right to confiscate 100% of our income. From your standpoint we only have those rights which are discretionary.

**** you then.

.

Cont, you don't know what a socialist is. To you its a random pejorative you apply to anyone who doesn't think exactly like you do. I've never 'avowed' support of any particular political or economic philosophy. Let alone socialism.

You couldn't even comment in a germane fashion when you did talk of taxes. As income tax isn't a seizure of property. Its a tax on increase. If you own a home but don't work for the year, you don't pay income tax.

If you're going to offer us useless overgeneralizations and cartoon stereotypes, at least pick one that's relevant to the discussion.

Cont, you don't know what a socialist is. To you its a random pejorative you apply to anyone who doesn't think exactly like you do. I've never 'avowed' support of any particular political or economic philosophy. Let alone socialism.

An individual who is for Constitutional Government , an American who supports individual rights and freedom , would have already studied our history and would know that the founding Fathers were adamantly opposed to direct taxation. You haven't.

You dared ask "WHY ARE DIRECT TAXES ARE IMMORAL AND UNETHICAL". Certified documentation from the states who voted on the amendment were ignored by you because they were rejected by the federal "courts" without an explanation. And because the states themselves are not opposing the sixteenth "amendment" only mere commoners who from your standpoint are idiots and should be crushed like maggots.


In Federalist #22 Alexander Hamilton explains that direct taxes are subject to abuse while excise taxes are not.

.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/lawrencehunter/2011/10/21/the-case-against-direct-taxation-part-one/

 

[Skylar]

By every moral or ethical standard, Income tax is one of the most moral and ethical systems of revenue generation devised.

I disagree entirely. I'm not going to rehash this idea. YOu go right for a goods maker and skip over the fact that people trade their time/productivity for compensation.

If it were merely for productivity and time, then income tax would apply to anything you built or any time you spent. Its not. Income tax is based on your increase, not your 'productivity' nor 'time'. If you have no increase, you pay no income tax.

This is the basis of its morality and ethical nature. As it takes into account your capacity to pay. If you have a bad year and lose money, if you are unemployed, if you are disabled.....you pay no income tax.

Indirect taxes don't take any of this into consideration. If you are disabled, they apply. If you're unemployed, they apply. Nor do capitation taxes, or ad valorem taxes take capacity to pay into account. Income taxes do. You won't address these issues, nor even include mention of them in the portions of my post you cite.

I suspect its because you know my point is valid.

You are more than welcome to believe it is ethical and moral to steal right from someones bread basket, but I do not see it that way.

I can provide a rational, reasoned argument based on factually valid points to support my position. You merely restate your opinion after every 'reason' you gave turned out to be invalid reasoning, misunderstandings or flat out historical inaccuracy. You misunderstood income tax, you misunderstood the 16th amendment, you misunderstood the constitution, you misunderstood the position of the founders on direct taxes.

And are left with a belief that is supported by nothing more than its mere existence. Which is logically invalid.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

f it were merely for productivity and time, then income tax would apply to anything you built or any time you spent. Its not. Income tax is based on your increase, not your 'productivity' nor 'time'. If you have no increase, you pay no income tax.

Is that why I work until around mid-April to pay the government from my productivity pool?
Yeah, you stick with those "increase" semantics.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

No increase. It's like saying, well, i made 50K last year, I made 50K this year. No increase, no income tax!!!!!

 

[Skylar]

An individual who is for Constitutional Government , an American who supports individual rights and freedom , would have already studied our history and would know that the founding Fathers were adamantly opposed to direct taxation. You haven't.

Then why did the founders apply direct taxation and provide rules for its application in the Constitution?

"No capitation, or other direct, tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken."

Capitation Clause, US Constitution

The founders simply insisted that any head tax be applied per the actual headcount. Which is why the tied such taxes to the census. They founders themselves applied direct taxes to houses, slaves, estates, etc.. Simply obliterating your claim that the founders adamantly opposed direct taxation.

Direct taxes were never forbidden by the founders. They were never forbidden by the constitution. Nor did the 16th amendment create any new taxation authority. It merely removed the apportionment clause.

You dared ask "WHY ARE DIRECT TAXES ARE IMMORAL AND UNETHICAL".

I dared to ask a question? How narrow is your political perspective that merely asking a question is taken as some sort of affront or umbrage. I'm asking for the position to be laid out and explained.

And you'll notice I've never been given a reasoned, factually valid explanation as to why direct taxes are immoral or unethical. I've heard the opinion stated over and over. But the reasoning behind the belief appears to be the belief itself.

Which is logically meaningless. If you can do better, by all means try. But dial back the melodrama and feigned outrage that anyone would 'dare ask why direct taxes are immoral or unethical'. If you're that easily offended, then this board may not be for you.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

And you'll notice I've never been given a reasoned, factually valid explanation as to why direct taxes are immoral or unethical.

You have, you simply disagree. You, nor I, will change anyone else's mind by posturing over their position. You didn't like the reason I gave and went for a bunch of legal dogma, poor legal dogma, rather than see the ethical and moral implications.

No more can be done for you on this. If you equate ethics with law, then you're fucked.

 

[Skylar]

No increase. It's like saying, well, i made 50K last year, I made 50K this year. No increase, no income tax!!!!!

No, that's not what is being said at all. If you didn't make any money last year, you don't pay income taxes. You don't pay if you don't make money. Income tax is a moral and ethical tax as it takes into account your capacity to pay, and doesn't kick you while you're down.

If you're unemployed or disabled, you pay nothing. If you're making money, only then do you pay. With the amount you pay higher as your capacity to pay rises. And lower as your capacity to pay diminishes.

Indirect taxation, capitation taxes and ad valorem taxes make no such distinction, requiring you to pay regardless of your capacity to do so.