Joe Steel
Class Warrior
Taxes are not theft. Theft is an unlawful taking of something of value. Taxes are lawful.
Direct taxes which are not apportioned are unconstitutional ...
What does that mean?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Taxes are not theft. Theft is an unlawful taking of something of value. Taxes are lawful.
Direct taxes which are not apportioned are unconstitutional ...
After studying your post, I have come to the conclusion you have little, if any, credibility. Why do I say this? Because contrary to what you posted, the "fairtax" [H.R. 25] is a proposal to establish two new taxes [a 23 percent tax upon the purchase of articles of consumption, and, another 23 percent tax upon the sale of labor] while keeping alive Congress' taxing power to lay and collect taxes calculated from profits, gains, and other incomes.
Au contraire:
The FairTax is a tax reform proposal for the federal government of the United States that would replace all federal income taxes (including the alternative minimum tax, corporate income taxes, and capital gains taxes), payroll taxes (including Social Security and Medicare taxes), gift taxes, and estate taxes with a single broad national consumption tax on retail sales. The Fair Tax Act (H.R. 25/S. 122) would apply a tax, once, at the point of purchase on all new goods and services for personal consumption.
FairTax - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Taxes are not theft. Theft is an unlawful taking of something of value. Taxes are lawful.
Direct taxes which are not apportioned are unconstitutional ...
What does that mean?
NopeDirect taxes which are not apportioned are unconstitutional ...
What does that mean?
It means that any direct tax laid by Congress which is not apportioned among the states is unconstitutional.
JWK
" I believe that there are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachment of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations." ___ Madison Elliot`s Debates, vol. III, page 87
NopeWhat does that mean?
It means that any direct tax laid by Congress which is not apportioned among the states is unconstitutional.
JWK
" I believe that there are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachment of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations." ___ Madison Elliot`s Debates, vol. III, page 87
The Sixteenth Amendment, which superseded this requirement by specifically providing that Congress could levy a tax on income "from whatever source derived" without it being apportioned among the States or otherwise based on a State's share of the national population.
Nope. The Sixteenth Amendment, which superseded this requirement by specifically providing that Congress could levy a tax on income "from whatever source derived" without it being apportioned among the States or otherwise based on a State's share of the national population.
No, I do not agree that direct taxes are required to be apportioned. I do agree that the 16th amendment supersedes the Article I, Section 2 in regard to direct taxes; that is direct taxes do not need to be apportioned among the states.Nope. The Sixteenth Amendment, which superseded this requirement by specifically providing that Congress could levy a tax on income "from whatever source derived" without it being apportioned among the States or otherwise based on a State's share of the national population.
Are you now in agreement that "direct taxes" are still required to be apportioned?
JWK
No, I do not agree that direct taxes are required to be apportioned. I do agree that the 16th amendment supersedes the Article I, Section 2 in regard to direct taxes; that is direct taxes do not need to be apportioned among the states.Nope. The Sixteenth Amendment, which superseded this requirement by specifically providing that Congress could levy a tax on income "from whatever source derived" without it being apportioned among the States or otherwise based on a State's share of the national population.
Are you now in agreement that "direct taxes" are still required to be apportioned?
JWK
True, the 16th amendment does not mention direct taxes. It specifies:NopeIt means that any direct tax laid by Congress which is not apportioned among the states is unconstitutional.
JWK
" I believe that there are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachment of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations." ___ Madison Elliot`s Debates, vol. III, page 87
The Sixteenth Amendment, which superseded this requirement by specifically providing that Congress could levy a tax on income "from whatever source derived" without it being apportioned among the States or otherwise based on a State's share of the national population.
The Sixteenth Amendment mentions nothing about "direct taxes", nor did it change the requirement that "direct taxes" are required to be apportioned.
I take it you are not familiar with a number of S.C. cases confirming direct taxes are still required to be apportioned:
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:
“[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.”
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:
A tax on going without health insurance does not fall within any recognized category of direct tax. It is not a capitation. Capitations are taxes paid by every person, "without regard to property, profession, or any other circumstance." Hylton, supra, at 175 (opinion of Chase, J.) (emphasis altered). The whole point of the shared responsibility payment is that it is triggered by specific circumstances—earning a certain amount of income but not obtaining health insurance. The payment is also plainly not a tax on the ownership of land or personal property. The shared responsibility payment is thus not a direct tax that must be apportioned among the several States.
JWK
No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.
The only fair method of taxation is a steeply progressive income tax. Our tax policy should be reformed to add more tax brackets and to increase marginal tax rates at every level to a maximum rate of at least 90% on the top tax bracket. That would spread the cost of American burden fairly.
Might want to relearn the definition of fair. I don't not agree with what you think is right or acceptable, nor does over half the country.1fair
adjective \ˈfer\ : agreeing with what is thought to be right or acceptable
: treating people in a way that does not favor some over others
: not too harsh or critical
I want a tax system that is equitable. Meaning that each person is taxed at the same rate, regardless of income.
Take your own advice. Fairness does not mean everyone is treated the same way. Doing so would favor some over others.
That is not equitable. For taxation, equity is a the degree of burden a tax creates. Some taxpayers might not be able to bear the same tax rate as others.
True, the 16th amendment does not mention direct taxes. It specifies:Nope
The Sixteenth Amendment, which superseded this requirement by specifically providing that Congress could levy a tax on income "from whatever source derived" without it being apportioned among the States or otherwise based on a State's share of the national population.
The Sixteenth Amendment mentions nothing about "direct taxes", nor did it change the requirement that "direct taxes" are required to be apportioned.
I take it you are not familiar with a number of S.C. cases confirming direct taxes are still required to be apportioned:
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:
[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.
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:
A tax on going without health insurance does not fall within any recognized category of direct tax. It is not a capitation. Capitations are taxes paid by every person, "without regard to property, profession, or any other circumstance." Hylton, supra, at 175 (opinion of Chase, J.) (emphasis altered). The whole point of the shared responsibility payment is that it is triggered by specific circumstancesearning a certain amount of income but not obtaining health insurance. The payment is also plainly not a tax on the ownership of land or personal property. The shared responsibility payment is thus not a direct tax that must be apportioned among the several States.
JWK
No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.
"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 amendment changes the constitution to exclude income tax from apportionment as a direct tax.
The cases and ruling you sight are about specific types of income namely stock dividends and transfers of property by gift. The rulings do not apply to income taxes in general but rather specific types of income being taxed.
Repealing the 16th Amendment is the only acceptable tax reform.