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

[dblack]

Every time I find a new angle in which imperial cultural marxists have wrought destruction upon this nation, I realize that it's the 16th Amendment that gives them the funding to carry out their treason against the Constitution of the United States. From the welfare state (democrats) to the imperialists (republicans), it seems that both of them fund their Big Government Tyranny (internally and externally) by garnishing our wages.

We pay for the destruction of our own liberties at home and the desolation of foreign nations abroad.

The 16th Amendment is what created the IRS and the income tax.

Amendment XVI
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.

It's the lynch pin of corporatism. Statists will never give it up.

 

[Skylar]

You have, you simply disagree.

More accurately, you were factually wrong. You claimed that the 16th amendment was required to allow direct taxation. That's nonsense. Direct taxation was always legal. It was always constitutional. The 16th amendment created no new taxation authority. It merely lifted the apportionment clause.

You claimed that the founders held your position. They obviously didn't, as they applied direct taxes themselves and provided a framework for the application of direct taxes in the Constitution, linking them to the census. Which grossly undermines your claim that they found them 'unethical' and 'immoral' as you do.

Worse, it similarly obliterates your claim that direct taxes were allowed by the 16th amendment yet again. The Capitation Clause demonstrates that the authority to levy direct taxes already existed. And had since at least the creation of the Constitution.

You claimed that income taxes were applied to your productivity and time. That's obviously false. You can productively manufacture thousands of widgets.....but if no one will buy them, you pay no income taxes. Income taxes aren't based on how much you produce or how much time you spend. Its based on how much increase you have.

Your every basis for the 'immorality' of income tax was either a blatant misunderstanding of the constitution, a gross misconception of the 16th amendment, or a stark misunderstanding of the nature of income tax itself.

While my points regarding the ethical and moral nature of income tax based in its accommodation of your capacity to pay remain uncontested and intact. Not only have you failed to prove your point, I've actively disproven it.

Even now you refuse to discuss how income taxes are moral and ethical, or any of the points I've raised. While I've addressed and thoroughly refuted your every basis for income taxes being 'unethical' and 'immoral'.

What you have left is naked opinion, backed by nothing but opinion. In short, a 'Begging the Question' fallacy.

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.

You're obviously free to hold any belief you wish. But when you cling to beliefs that are based on gross and provable misconceptions of history, the constitution, and law....the value of your opinion wanes. You have no logical or rational basis for your belief. You merely have an opinion.

You're welcome to it. But it doesn't change the 16th amendment, the founders use of direct taxation, the Capitation clause, or how income tax accommodates your capacity to pay by only applying to increase. Not simply productivity and time.

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

I've given you my basis of the moral ethical nature of income tax: its accommodation of your capacity to pay, increasing as your capacity to pay increases. And decreasing as your capacity to pay decreases. If you don't make any money one year, are unemployed or disabled, you pay no income tax. Thus, it doesn't kick you while you're down. And applies itself most fully to those most fully able to pay.

That accommodation of the capacity to pay puts income tax head and shoulders above more regressive taxation that applies regardless of circumstance. And renders it far more moral and ethical for exactly these reasons.

I've stated this repeatedly, and you've starkly refused to discuss it. You won't even quote me having said it when you cite my posts. And now, bizarrely, you try and insist that my basis for the ethical nature of income tax is 'the law'?

Um, no. I've established my basis and you've ignored it. Address it, or don't. But my position remains the same.

 

[Contumacious]

You have, you simply disagree.

More accurately, you were factually wrong. You claimed that the 16th amendment was required to allow direct taxation. That's nonsense. Direct taxation was always legal. It was always constitutional. The 16th amendment created no new taxation authority. It merely lifted the apportionment clause.
.

Which is akin to removing fuses from your electrical fuse box and hard wiring the circuits..

But again , if you were an HONEST AMERICAN you would consider Mr Benson's CERTIFIED DOCUMENTATION showing that the Sixteenth Amendment was NEVER VALIDLY LAWFULLY ADOPTED.

The fact that you come up with bullshit pretexts to consider it as a valid amendment is prima facie evidence that you are a socialist and/or suffering of Gruber stupidity.

In CENTRAL ILLINOIS PUBLIC SERV. CO.v. UNITED STATES, 435 U.S. 21 (1978) the scumbags completely obliterated the definiton of wages and income. Assuming, arguendo, that the 16th was adopted it only authorized it to tax INCOME not the SOURCE FROM WHICH IT IS DERIVED.

"he present withholding system has a later origin in the Victory Tax imposed by the Revenue Act of 1942, 172, 56 Stat. 884. This, with its then new 465 (b) of the 1939 Code, embraced the basic definition of "wages" now contained in [435 U.S. 21, 27] 3401 (a) of the 1954 Code. The Victory Tax was replaced by the Current Tax Payment Act of 1943, 57 Stat. 126, and was repealed by the Individual Income Tax Act of 1944, 6 (a), 58 Stat. 234. The structure of the 1943 Act survives to the present day.."

.

 

[Skylar]

Which is akin to removing fuses from your electrical fuse box and hard wiring the circuits..

Nope. That's just an awful analogy.

Try addressing the issue directly.

But again , if you were an HONEST AMERICAN you would consider Mr Benson's CERTIFIED DOCUMENTATION showing that the Sixteenth Amendment was NEVER VALIDLY LAWFULLY ADOPTED.

Oh, joy. First a 'false analogy' fallacy. And now a 'no true scotsman' fallacy. Its like a parade of logical inconsistency. But back to your claims:

Which State has said that they never ratified the 16th amendment that the Secretary of State indicated did?

Name the State.

And of course, if Mr. Benson's evidence is so compelling, why didn't he use it in his own tax evasion case? Benson completely abandoned his 'Law that Never Was' schtick and instead argued that he was too stupid to correctly file his taxes and didn't mean to fail to pay his tax debt.

Benson will still sell you his book for $19.95 plus shipping and handling though. Just don't be surprised if the pages of his tome are a bit shit stained.....as the man routinely wiped his ass with his own reasoning.

The fact that you come up with bullshit pretexts to consider it as a valid amendment is prima facie evidence that you are a socialist and/or suffering of Gruber stupidity.

I don't think 'prima facie' means what you think it means. As the refusal to accept the inane blather of any random conspiracy theorist has nothing to do with socialism. You're using 'socialist' as a random pejorative again without the slightest consciousness to its actual meaning.

Its just your favorite name to call people if they don't agree with you.

In CENTRAL ILLINOIS PUBLIC SERV. CO.v. UNITED STATES, 435 U.S. 21 (1978) the scumbags completely obliterated the definiton of wages and income. Assuming, arguendo, that the 16th was adopted it only authorized it to tax INCOME not the SOURCE FROM WHICH IT IS DERIVED.

You may want to actually read the ruling rather than what you've been told it means. As the court doesn't 'obliterate' anything.

The two concepts - income and wages - obviously are not necessarily the same. Wages usually are income, 5 but many items qualify as income and yet clearly are not wages. Interest, rent, and dividends are ready examples. And the very definition of "wages" in 3401 (a) itself goes on specifically to exclude certain types of remuneration for an employee's services to his employer (e. g., combat pay, agricultural labor, certain domestic service). Our task, therefore, is to determine the character of the lunch reimbursements in the light of the definition of "wages" in 3401 (a), and the Company's consequent obligation to withhold under 3402 (a).

"he present withholding system has a later origin in the Victory Tax imposed by the Revenue Act of 1942, 172, 56 Stat. 884. This, with its then new 465 (b) of the 1939 Code, embraced the basic definition of "wages" now contained in [435 U.S. 21, 27] 3401 (a) of the 1954 Code. The Victory Tax was replaced by the Current Tax Payment Act of 1943, 57 Stat. 126, and was repealed by the Individual Income Tax Act of 1944, 6 (a), 58 Stat. 234. The structure of the 1943 Act survives to the present day.."

CENTRAL ILLINOIS PUBLIC SERV. CO.v. UNITED STATES, 435 U.S. 21 (1978)

The highlighted portion was the question being asked and answered by the courts in Central Illinois Public Serv.. They're determining if lunch reimbursements constitute wages. The authority of the government to levy income taxes isn't based in the 1943 Current Tax Payment Act. But the 16th amendment. The payment act simply contained the most current legal definitions used by the government at the time of the ruling.

So where did the definitions of 'wages' and 'income' get obliterated exactly? You're demonstrating the difference between reading the ruling....and merely copying and pasting what you've been told to think. As I don't think you understand the argument you're making. Nor can you support it

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Skylar, just say it, you want our money.

 

[dblack]

Skylar, just say it, you want our money.

The money isn't the most insidious thing about the income tax. It's the power it gives Congress. The tax code has become the primary tool for manipulating society and extorting favors from interest groups. It's the reason lobbyists have careers.

 

[Skylar]

Skylar, just say it, you want our money.

Taxes aren't paid to me. They're paid to congress.

Again, you seem confused.

 

[johnwk]

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.

.

Let us review some of our founder’s thinking regarding why the rule of apportioning direct taxes is essential:

Pinckney addressing the S.C. ratification convention with regard to the rule of apportionment :


“With regard to the general government imposing internal taxes upon us, he contended that it was absolutely necessary they should have such a power: requisitions had been in vain tried every year since the ratification of the old Confederation, and not a single state had paid the quota required of her. The general government could not abuse this power, and favor one state and oppress another, as each state was to be taxed only in proportion to its representation.” 4 Elliot‘s, S.C., 305-6


And see:

“The proportion of taxes are fixed by the number of inhabitants, and not regulated by the extent of the territory, or fertility of soil”3 Elliot’s, 243,“Each state will know, from its population, its proportion of any general tax” 3 Elliot’s, 244 ___ Mr. George Nicholas, during the ratification debates of our Constitution.


Mr. Madison goes on to remark about Congress’s “general power of taxation” that, "they will be limited to fix the proportion of each State, and they must raise it in the most convenient and satisfactory manner to the public."3 Elliot, 255


And if there is any confusion about the rule of apportionment intentionally designed to insure that the people of each state are to be taxed proportionately equal to their representation in Congress, Mr. PENDLETON says:


“The apportionment of representation and taxation by the same scale is just; it removes the objection, that, while Virginia paid one sixth part of the expenses of the Union, she had no more weight in public counsels than Delaware, which paid but a very small portion”3 Elliot’s 41


JWK




Our tyrants in Washington force the productive to pay taxes on incomes so they can spread their wealth and buy votes, but the Washington Establishment does not force their beloved 45 % who pay no income taxes to work for the taxes they get

 

[Skylar]

Let us review some of our founder’s thinking regarding why the rule of apportioning direct taxes is essential:

Then why do you call for a flat out prohibition of income taxes, if your issue is apportionment? Should I ignore what you said when you insisted that all income taxes should be forbidden? Or ignore what you're saying now when you insist that the issue is apportionment?

Because those are mutually exclusive positions.

 

[Contumacious]

[



Let us review some of our founder’s thinking regarding why the rule of apportioning direct taxes is essential:

Pinckney addressing the S.C. ratification convention with regard to the rule of apportionment :


“With regard to the general government imposing internal taxes upon us, he contended that it was absolutely necessary they should have such a power: requisitions had been in vain tried every year since the ratification of the old Confederation, and not a single state had paid the quota required of her. The general government could not abuse this power, and favor one state and oppress another, as each state was to be taxed only in proportion to its representation.” 4 Elliot‘s, S.C., 305-6


And see:

“The proportion of taxes are fixed by the number of inhabitants, and not regulated by the extent of the territory, or fertility of soil”3 Elliot’s, 243,“Each state will know, from its population, its proportion of any general tax” 3 Elliot’s, 244 ___ Mr. George Nicholas, during the ratification debates of our Constitution.


Mr. Madison goes on to remark about Congress’s “general power of taxation” that, "they will be limited to fix the proportion of each State, and they must raise it in the most convenient and satisfactory manner to the public."3 Elliot, 255


And if there is any confusion about the rule of apportionment intentionally designed to insure that the people of each state are to be taxed proportionately equal to their representation in Congress, Mr. PENDLETON says:


“The apportionment of representation and taxation by the same scale is just; it removes the objection, that, while Virginia paid one sixth part of the expenses of the Union, she had no more weight in public counsels than Delaware, which paid but a very small portion”3 Elliot’s 41


JWK




Our tyrants in Washington force the productive to pay taxes on incomes so they can spread their wealth and buy votes, but the Washington Establishment does not force their beloved 45 % who pay no income taxes to work for the taxes they get

Excellent research. Thanks.


Forbes magazine has also conducted an excellent research on Direct Taxation as considered by the Founders:

The Case Against Direct Taxation

 

[Skylar]

Excellent research. Thanks.

He thoroughly established a point that no one contests: the existence of the apportionment clause.

Alas, his 'tax proposal' is to forbid income tax. Which he bizarrely insists was the founders 'original tax plan'.

Which his own posts demonstrate it wasn't. The founders called for direct taxes to be applied with apportionment. Not abolished and forbidden. Direct taxes have been constitutional for as long as we've had a constitution. All the 16th amendment did was lift the apportionment clause.

 

[Contumacious]

Excellent research. Thanks.

He thoroughly established a point that no one contests: the existence of the apportionment clause.

Alas, his 'tax proposal' is to forbid income tax. Which he bizarrely insists was the founders 'original tax plan'.

Which his own posts demonstrate it wasn't. The founders called for direct taxes to be applied with apportionment. Not abolished and forbidden. Direct taxes have been constitutional for as long as we've had a constitution. All the 16th amendment did was lift the apportionment clause.

Just remember Mr Parasite:

Even though the motherfuckers are levying an UNconstitutional Direct Tax that is still not enough to finance the welfare/warfare police state.


Even though the low life son of bitches have substituted gold for worthless paper money that is still not enough to finance the welfare/warfare police state.

We are 17 TTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTtrillion in the hole ....and that amount is rapidly increasing.

When the shit finally hits the fan , it would be nice if you come forward identifying yourself as one of the parasites who precipitated the collapse.


I believe the Patriots have a gift for you:

.

 

[johnwk]

Let us review some of our founder’s thinking regarding why the rule of apportioning direct taxes is essential:

Then why do you call for a flat out prohibition of income taxes, if your issue is apportionment? Should I ignore what you said when you insisted that all income taxes should be forbidden? Or ignore what you're saying now when you insist that the issue is apportionment?

Because those are mutually exclusive positions.

What I call for is returning to our Constitution's original tax plan, as our founders intended it to operate, and allows for imposts, duties, excise taxes and any direct taxes so long as they are apportioned. Why do you ignore what our Constitution states in crystal clear language?

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

 

[johnwk]

[



Let us review some of our founder’s thinking regarding why the rule of apportioning direct taxes is essential:

Pinckney addressing the S.C. ratification convention with regard to the rule of apportionment :


“With regard to the general government imposing internal taxes upon us, he contended that it was absolutely necessary they should have such a power: requisitions had been in vain tried every year since the ratification of the old Confederation, and not a single state had paid the quota required of her. The general government could not abuse this power, and favor one state and oppress another, as each state was to be taxed only in proportion to its representation.” 4 Elliot‘s, S.C., 305-6


And see:

“The proportion of taxes are fixed by the number of inhabitants, and not regulated by the extent of the territory, or fertility of soil”3 Elliot’s, 243,“Each state will know, from its population, its proportion of any general tax” 3 Elliot’s, 244 ___ Mr. George Nicholas, during the ratification debates of our Constitution.


Mr. Madison goes on to remark about Congress’s “general power of taxation” that, "they will be limited to fix the proportion of each State, and they must raise it in the most convenient and satisfactory manner to the public."3 Elliot, 255


And if there is any confusion about the rule of apportionment intentionally designed to insure that the people of each state are to be taxed proportionately equal to their representation in Congress, Mr. PENDLETON says:


“The apportionment of representation and taxation by the same scale is just; it removes the objection, that, while Virginia paid one sixth part of the expenses of the Union, she had no more weight in public counsels than Delaware, which paid but a very small portion”3 Elliot’s 41


JWK




Our tyrants in Washington force the productive to pay taxes on incomes so they can spread their wealth and buy votes, but the Washington Establishment does not force their beloved 45 % who pay no income taxes to work for the taxes they get

Excellent research. Thanks.


Forbes magazine has also conducted an excellent research on Direct Taxation as considered by the Founders:

The Case Against Direct Taxation

The Forbes article perpetuates THE BIG LIE which I will quote as follows:

"When the explicit constitutional constraint on direct taxation (the apportionment rule) was removed with ratification of the 16th Amendment . . ."



There is nothing in the 16th Amendment stating that "direct taxes on income are not subject to apportionment". Those are your words. Let me repeat that "the 16th Amendment did not remove the constitutional requirement that "No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken"



Shortly after the 16th Amendment was adopted the Court in Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co. (1916) confirmed that the 16 Amendment granted no new power of taxation. The Court states in crystal clear language:


"...by the previous ruling (the previous ruling was Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R. Co. 1916), it was settled that the provisions of the 16th Amendment conferred no new power of taxation but simply prohibited the previous complete and plenary power of income taxation possessed by Congress from the beginning from being taken out of the category of INDIRECT taxation to which it inherently belonged.."




Later, in Eisner v. Macomber 252 U.S. 189, 206 (1920), a case dealing with 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 latter in another case dealing with direct vs. indirect taxation, in BROMLEY VS MCCAUGHN, 280 U.S. 124 (1929), the Court emphatically stated “As the present tax is not apportioned, it is forbidden, if direct.”


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.


Our big media continues to perpetuate the big lie that the 16th Amendment removed the constitutional requirement that direct taxes shall be apportioned among the States. I think one of the reasons they perpetuate the big lie that apportionment of direct taxes was killed by the 16th Amendment is because some people may figure out taxing the wages of labor was considered to be a direct tax during the time period our Constitution was framed and ratified. For example, a review of Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations, a contemporary writing of the time which our Founders were very much familiar with, we find the following reference regarding a capitation tax as being a direct tax:

“Capitation taxes, so far as they are levied upon the lower ranks of people, are direct taxes upon the wages of labor.” Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations, id. at pg. 540.

Other than the above mentioned BIG LIE, the article is a good read.

Let me also point out that our Constitution's original tax plan is part of the Congressional Record!


To review our Constitution’s original tax plan as it was intended to operate by our Founders see the submission offered by the American Constitutional Research Service, during the 1995 hearings on “Replacing the Federal Income Tax:


https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=3&ved=0CDIQFjAC&url=https%3A%2F%2Fbulk.resource.org%2Fgpo.gov%2Fhearings%2F104h%2F21846.pdf&ei=UjL6UuKfDKH4yQHS8YGABw&usg=AFQjCNE6sL0uzFYjIWtvLqYyZmRn0X7maQ

and scroll down to page 687. It takes about 15 seconds to load and is a pdf file.




For the 1996 hearings here is the link


https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=16&ved=0CDkQFjAFOAo&url=https%3A%2F%2Fftp.kdis.edu.cn%2F211-xkkr-10%2Fdoc%2Fyuguan%2F104th%2520Congress%2520(1995-1996)%2F50.pdf&ei=azf6UqK8BeHbyQGvh4C4Dg&usg=AFQjCNFmH1tqOX2a3HB9qdA3tSBPPVXokA


and then scroll down to page 236 This also takes about 20 – 30 seconds to load and is a pdf file.



Regards,

JWK

 

[Dante]

What I call for is returning to our Constitution's original tax plan, as our founders intended it to operate, and allows for imposts, duties, excise taxes and any direct taxes so long as they are apportioned. Why do you ignore what our Constitution's states in crystal clear language?

JWK

the founders? Stop hiding behind them. The Constitution allows amendments. We can change anything we want

 

[johnwk]

What I call for is returning to our Constitution's original tax plan, as our founders intended it to operate, and allows for imposts, duties, excise taxes and any direct taxes so long as they are apportioned. Why do you ignore what our Constitution's states in crystal clear language?

JWK

the founders? Stop hiding behind them. The Constitution allows amendments. We can change anything we want

You are absolutely correct that we can change anything we want. And that is why I support CHANGE by supporting

The Fair Share Balanced Budget Amendment Did you read it?


JWK

 

[Skylar]

Just remember Mr Parasite:

Even though the motherfuckers are levying an UNconstitutional Direct Tax that is still not enough to finance the welfare/warfare police state.


Even though the low life son of bitches have substituted gold for worthless paper money that is still not enough to finance the welfare/warfare police state.

There's nothing unconstitutional about a direct tax. Again, read 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.

Article 1, Section 9, Clause 4 of the US Constitution

Far from being 'unconstitutional', the constitution gives instructions on how such direct taxes are to be levied, linking them to the census. The founders themselves levied direct taxes on property, slaves, houses, and estates. Direct taxes have been constitutional as long as there has been a constitution.

And with the 16th amendment, even the apportionment restrictions were lifted.

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.

16th Amendment of the Constitution of the United States

The 16th amendment didn't create new taxation authority. It simply lifted apportionment restrictions.

When the shit finally hits the fan , it would be nice if you come forward identifying yourself as one of the parasites who precipitated the collapse.

I believe the Patriots have a gift for you:

.

Oh, Cont. You forget, my friend....that your ilk are hapless chickenshits. Full of vague threats of violence, until its time to start doing patriot shit. Like fighting. And bleeding. And dying. Then there's always some excuse why its someone *else* that has to bleed.

But never you.

And you're in excellent company. Almost all of your ilk have the exact same excuses. Which is why you're harmless.

 

[Skylar]

What I call for is returning to our Constitution's original tax plan, as our founders intended it to operate, and allows for imposts, duties, excise taxes and any direct taxes so long as they are apportioned. Why do you ignore what our Constitution states in crystal clear language?

JWK

What you called for was for income taxes (which are a direct tax) to be forbidden. And that's not the founders original plan. That's your plan, which you misrepresent as the founder's. Either through ignorance, not understanding the apportionment clause. Or intentionally, straight up making up nonsense about the constitution.

Either rendering your claims invalid.

 

[FA_Q2]

The Income Tax is wrong and the IRS as we know it, needs to go. There are better ways to tax and collect taxes. Time to get rid of the IRS. It's a corrupt cancerous bureaucracy at this point.

What makes it "wrong," other than the fact that it's tax and nobody likes having to pay taxes?

I am not Paul but Ill answer this anyway as I don't think that Paul actually has an answer other than what you already stated

Its wrong because tax law and the IRS no longer serve the purpose that they are supposed to serve (funding the government). Instead, we have a tax code that is far more interested in social engineering than it is in actually properly funding the government. We have a tax code that thrives on taxes that are wholly hidden to the taxpayer.

Wage earners do not pay 7.5% in SS taxes - they pay 15% but the tax man does not want you to actually know what you are really paying into the system - it would piss you off. Same thing with a host of other taxes. Then the wealthy are able to enjoy a host of tax 'breaks' that do nothing in actually funding the nation but certainly help big business (many of the ones enjoying those breaks) defeat small upstarts that would give them real competition.

Then the federal government is able to tax the cash a state needs to build roads and then, essentally, gift it back to them if they sing the federal governments tune. How much power do you actually think that a state has when the feds can force money out of it and hold its return based on it falling in line? None. The idea that we have a federal system of governance anymore is fallacy and it has a LOT to do with the fact that the feds are a middle man in the flow of money from the states own populace. Tax monies that should be going straight to the state without federal involvement.

Why do you get a cash payment from the IRS when you have a child? Why do you get a tax break for buying a specific window or water heater? What have these things to do with funding the government? Nothing of course. What they have to do with is CONTROL and POWER. We need to eliminate that particular power - it is getting grossly out of control.

That was nothing more than an emotional tirade about why you hate the government. It does not say anything about why income tax is "wrong."

That is not an 'emotional tirade' and I don't hate the government so both of your suppositions are simply trying to sidestep a real answer.

I should be clear though, I don't actually think that an income tax is wrong. I find that I think it is far better than a consumption tax. The perverted income tax we currently have is wrong though - it is not a tax system but a social engineering and payback system.

 

[FA_Q2]

That was nothing more than an emotional tirade about why you hate the government. It does not say anything about why income tax is "wrong."

Dante's sock joins (rejoins, adjoins?) the fight.

You think swim is a sock?