Ron Paul on tax reform

Advocate wrote:

John, I read your linked stuff, and it does not support your statements.

Thank you for your opinion. Now, are you interested in tax reform and how to control the reckless spending and borrowing habits of Congress or is it your aim to misdirect the subject matter as seems to be the pattern in this thread? What do you think about our Constitution`s fair share formula? How would you make members of Congress immediately accountable for reckless spending and borrowing? Do you enjoy being a tax slave for the Washington Establishment and its millions of political plum job holders?

JWK

0 Replies

John, I did say before that you are ignoring the 16th amendment, which is the law of the land.

But you are also very wrong about the number of political jobs and virtually everything else.

I previously defended our current income tax system, but believe that there should be a bit more graduation.

Paul is a radical who makes little sense. He appeals to the many radicals in this country.

0 Replies

Paul is an experienced person who had wasted his whole life to earn some paper money and lime light distortions.
He should peacefully retire..
USA needs a radical change and Paul is not the one who can shape the war-mongering bloodthirty, consumers.
Of course ha was against the barbaric war( one among the few)

0 Replies

Advocate wrote:

John, I did say before that you are ignoring the 16th amendment, which is the law of the land.

I am? How about explaining how I am ignoring the 16th Amendment? Or, did you also make that up?

Advocate wrote:

But you are also very wrong about the number of political jobs and virtually everything else.

I see you have repeated your unsubstantiated assertion. How nice.

Let us look at the facts:

FEDERAL EMPLOYEE OVERVIEW

Quote:

Are you considering a government job? The federal government employs more than 2,715,000 workers and hires hundreds of thousands each year to replace civil service workers that transfer to other federal government jobs, retire, or stop working for other reasons. Average annual salary for full-time federal government jobs exceeds $67,000. The U.S. Government is the largest employer in the United States, hiring about 2.0 percent of the nation's civilian work force. Federal government jobs can be found in every state and large metropolitan area, including overseas in over 200 countries.

Mary and Joe Sixpack`s average annual wage amounts to approximately $40-45 K

In addition here are other federal employee ``benefits``:

Life insurance plan___ Mary and Joe Sixpack get to pay 1/3 of a government workers federal life insurance plan.

Federal Employees Dental & Vision Program is a full coverage plan and federal employees get to use pre-tax dollars to pay for their vision and dental premiums while Mary and Joe are forced to use after taxed dollars to fund their Dental & Vision plan..

Under the federal employee retirement system, there is a tax-deferred savings plan known as the ``Thrift Savings Plan``. Under this plan, federal workers may contribute up to 10% of their salaries to the plan, with Mary and Joe Sixpack being taxed to match up to 5% of a federal employees contribution.

Also under the Civilian Service Retirement System a federal employee contributes 7% of their paycheck to retirement while Mary and Joe Sixpack are forced to match that 7 % out of their paychecks.

And, with reference to health insurance, which is in addition to the above mentioned dental and vision plan, see Federal Employees to See Moderate Rise in Health Insurance Premiums

Quote:

Health insurance premiums for federal employees and retirees will increase by an average of 2.1 percent next year, the Office of Personnel Management announced this afternoon.

<Snip>

The federal program will offer 283 plans next year and will provide insurance coverage to about 8 million Americans: civil service and postal workers, retirees, and family members. The government picks up about 70 percent of premium costs in its role as employer.

What the article meant to state is, Mary and Joe Sixpack, who can barely meet their own health care needs, get to pick up about 70 percent of the premium costs to provide health care to federal employees and their families.

And you think Mary and Joe Sixpack have not been made a tax slave for the Washington Establishment and its millions of political plum job holders?

Advocate wrote:

``Paul is a radical who makes little sense``

We are not talking about Ron Paul, but a specific quote of his:

Quote:

``The real enemy of tax reform is the spending culture in Washington. Let me repeat: we will never have tax reform in this country until Congress changes its spending habits. The reform rhetoric, regardless of which party it comes from, never changes the reality that federal spending grows every year``-----Ron Paul

Now, are you interested in tax reform and how to control the reckless spending and borrowing habits of Congress or is it your aim to misdirect the subject matter as seems to be the pattern in this thread? What do you think about our Constitution`s fair share formula? How would you make members of Congress immediately accountable for reckless spending and borrowing? Do you enjoy being a tax slave for the Washington Establishment and its millions of political plum job holders?

JWK

``He has erected a multitude of new offices (Washington`s existing political plum job Empire) , and sent hither swarms of officers, to harass our people, and eat out their substance`` ___Declaration of Independence

0 Replies

john w k wrote:

What do you think about our Constitution`s fair share formula? How would you make members of Congress immediately accountable for reckless spending and borrowing? Do you enjoy being a tax slave for the Washington Establishment and its millions of political plum job holders?

1) I am not an American.

2) I do not agree with your characterisation of the millions of state employees as "political plum job holders". While I'd gladly see the incomes of those at the top of the machine taken down a peg, there's plenty of honest, hard-working people working as regular state employees who receive no more than they earn.

3) I disagree with activating the "fair share formula" as you propose, as I believe that if you are to stand united as a nation, the strongest shoulders should carry the heaviest burden. A country's unity and cohesion depends on at least some degree of solidarity. Hardscrabble West Virginia, for example, is much poorer than pleasant Connecticut, Massachussetts or Rhode Island - but because you are a nation, you share some of the wealth and do not leave the poorest parts of the country to their own devices.

0 Replies

Nimb wrote:

I do not agree with your characterisation of the millions of state employees as "political plum job holders". While I'd gladly see the incomes of those at the top of the machine taken down a peg, there's plenty of honest, hard-working people working as regular state employees who receive no more than they earn.

State employees? The conversation is not about state employees but federal employees. There is a very big difference between federal and state employees, and their constitutionally authorized functions.

Nimb wrote:

I disagree with activating the "fair share formula" as you propose, as I believe that if you are to stand united as a nation, the strongest shoulders should carry the heaviest burden. A country's unity and cohesion depends on at least some degree of solidarity. Hardscrabble West Virginia, for example, is much poorer than pleasant Connecticut, Massachussetts or Rhode Island - but because you are a nation, you share some of the wealth and do not leave the poorest parts of the country to their own devices.[/i]

Our federal Constitution`s fair share formula applies to each state`s number of votes in Congress and each states`s share of a total sum to be raised if Congress cannot raise sufficient revenue from imposts, duties and miscellaneous excise taxes on consumption. Since you say you disagree with our Constitution`s fair share formula, is your disagreement across the board, or only if the States are called upon to fill the national treasury?

Considering subsequent amendments to our federal Constitution, the formula would apply as follows:

State`s Population
_________________X size of Congress (435)=State`s No.of Representatives
population of U.S.

State`s population
-------------------------------X SUM TO BE RAISED = STATE`S SHARE
Total U.S. Population

And, the intention agreed upon was to insure that taxation and representation would be set by the same standard.

The intention was stated as follows:

Quote:

Mr. George Nicholas said: "the proportion of taxes is fixed by the number of inhabitants, and not regulated by the extent of territory, or fertility of soil. . . . Each State [*568] will know, from its population, its proportion of any general tax. [/color] As it was justly observed by the gentleman over the way, (Mr. Randolph), they cannot possibly exceed that proportion; they are limited and restrained expressly to it. The state legislatures have no check of this kind. Their power is uncontrolled." 3 Elliot, 243, 244.

Mr. Madison remarked 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.

I`m a firm believer in representation with proportional obligation on a federal level, but then again , I also believe it is dishonorable and borders on theft for one to use their vote, and the force of the federal government, to compel a neighbor to finance the functions of government while relieving myself from the very same burden.

Of course, there is an entire political philosophy built upon the notion from each according to their ability, to each according to their need. and that philosophy pretends there is a magic wand in using the force of government which changes the definition of theft___ a theft which occurs under the system which is carried out by 51 percent of the people voting to confiscate the remaining 49 percent of the people`s property.

JWK

``If the Constitution was ratified under the belief, sedulously propagated on all sides, that such protection was afforded, would it not now be a fraud upon the whole people to give a different construction to its powers?``[/i]_____ Justice Story

0 Replies

john w k wrote:

State employees? The conversation is not about state employees but federal employees. There is a very big difference between federal and state employees, and their constitutionally authorized functions.

Sure, ok. I meant government employees in general, and thus also federal employees. There's a great many that don't have any kind of "plum" job, but just do hard work for a regular income.

john w k wrote:

Our federal Constitution`s fair share formula applies to each state`s number of votes in Congress [..]. Since you say you disagree with our Constitution`s fair share formula, is your disagreement across the board, or only if the States are called upon to fill the national treasury?

I disagree with applying the fair share formula to taxes as you propose, because it would run counter to the idea that in a nation that stands united, the stronger shoulders should carry the heavier burden. Whether you're from Massachusetts or from West-Virginia, you're all Americans, and one thing that I think being part of a greater community entails is that you help out your less prosperous brethren, and do not leave the poorest states just to fend for themselves.

There is no parallel to that notion in the question of individual states' number of votes in Congress. Each citizen should have equal say in the government of the country, yes, and the weighing of votes each state has in the House of Representatives by population is one way to guarantee that. I think it's only normal that the wealthier people - and the wealthier states - contribute more finances to the overall good, but no, of course that does not mean that they should also get more seats in Congress. You dont buy your place in a democracy, it's a wholly separate question.

It's nimh by the way, not nimb. You got it right when you posted before.

0 Replies

nimh wrote

I think it's only normal that the wealthier people - and the wealthier states - contribute more finances to the overall good, but no, of course that does not mean that they should also get more seats in Congress. You dont buy your place in a democracy, it's a wholly separate question.

Democracy? You view ``democracy`` to be a desirable form of government ___ two wolves and a sheep voting for what shall be for dinner is a desirable system of government? Well, I view democracy as being a dangerous form of government as did a number of our nation`s founding fathers.

Madison, for example in talking about democracy, in Federalist Paper No. 10[/u] notes ``the violence of faction`` and also emphatically states: ``that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.``

Madison continues: "The inference to which we are brought is that the causes of faction cannot be removed, and that relief is only to be sought in the means of controlling its effects."

In controlling the ``effects``, the founding fathers provided a specific rule by which the various states are to contribute into the federal treasury in a general tax ___ a rule preempting a socialist or a dishonorable Congress from seeking out wealth, financial success, and then taxing it wherever found and without restraints ___ which is a fundamental and historical evil associated with ``democracy``, democracy being mob rule vote leading to group theft!

The idea that ``it's only normal that the wealthier people - and the wealthier states - contribute more finances to the overall good`` is an idea quite similar to the thinking of a thief when stealing other people`s property. In both cases property is the object being acquired by force and against the property owners will. In any event the issue was exhaustively debated during the framing of our written Constitution and the people eventually agreed that taxation and representation would be measured by the same standard, the various state population sizes, and I happened to agree with its philosophical reasoning which is ___ representation with proportional obligation

JWK

``To lay with one hand the power of the government on the property of the citizen and with the other to bestow upon favored individuals, to aid private enterprises and build up private fortunes is none the less a robbery because it is done under forms of law and called taxation.``[/i] ____ Savings and Loan Assc. v. Topeka,(1875).

0 Replies

John, your link, Federal Employee Overview, is to a phony money-making commercial site, and contains a lot of crap. The figures given are false.

Your credibility is zilch.

0 Replies

john w k wrote:

Democracy? You view ``democracy`` to be a desirable form of government

Guilty as charged. I do view democracy as a desirable form of government.

john w k wrote:

Well, I view democracy as being a dangerous form of government as did a number of our nation`s founding fathers.

Madison, for example in talking about democracy, in Federalist Paper No. 10[/u] notes ``the violence of faction`` and also emphatically states: ``that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.``

Since I'm not American, the words of your founding fathers do not mean more to me than those of any other enlightened wise men in the world of those times, and the wise men of those times certainly disagreed with one another on those issues. None of theirs is somehow an exclusionary guiding star to go by.

But rolling with your quote - in it, Madison was not referring to just "democracy" in general, but specifically to "such democracies".. what kind of democracies? Well, as he wrote earlier in the same paragraph, he was talking specifically about "a pure democracy, by which I mean a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person". Which makes you wonder how relevant his observation is still in these times where nothing like that remotely exists.

john w k wrote:

The idea that ``it's only normal that the wealthier people - and the wealthier states - contribute more finances to the overall good`` is an idea quite similar to the thinking of a thief when stealing other people`s property.

It's quite similar to the thinking of a stronger brother who takes on extra hours to provide for his family because his younger/unhealthier/whatever brother can't take on as much. At least it is if you see your country as a kind of family, as a society, as a nation where you feel you belong together and should stand together.

john w k wrote:

In both cases property is the object being acquired by force and against the property owners will.

That assumes that taxes are "acquired by force and against the property owners will." Of course we all gripe about taxes, just like we do about the weather. But the share of people who sincerely feel they shouldnt have to pay any (the implication of saying that they have to be acquired from them "by force and against their will") - that it is really the equivalent of theft - is a small minority. Most of us know that we need to contribute some for the state/government to do the things we expect it to do. Wouldn't people in you alternative system, too, still pay taxes after all?

john w k wrote:

the founding fathers provided a specific rule by which the various states are to contribute into the federal treasury in a general tax [..]. the issue was exhaustively debated during the framing of our written Constitution and the people eventually agreed that taxation and representation would be measured by the same standard, the various state population sizes,

But this rule, the one you want to reactivate, was superceded by the 16th amendment as Advocate quoted it.

0 Replies

Advocate wrote:

``John, your link, Federal Employee Overview, is to a phony money-making commercial site, and contains a lot of crap. The figures given are false.

Your credibility is zilch. ``[/i]

Really? Your funny! Everyone’s credibility is zilch, except yours. Thank you for your continued unsubstantiated assertions.

JWK

0 Replies

the founding fathers provided a specific rule by which the various states are to contribute into the federal treasury in a general tax [..]. the issue was exhaustively debated during the framing of our written Constitution and the people eventually agreed that taxation and representation would be measured by the same standard, the various state population sizes,[/i]

nihm wrote:

But this rule, the one you want to reactivate, was superceded by the 16th amendment as Advocate quoted it.[/i]

ANSWER:

Advocate says a lot of unsubstantiated things which are not factual.

The apportioned tax mentioned in Article 1 Section 2, Clause three of our Constitution has not been superceded by the 16th Amendment. The 16th Amendment does not apply to the ``direct tax`` mentioned in Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3.

See BROMLEY v. MCCAUGHN, 280 U.S. 124 (1929) in which the Court emphatically points out , well after the adoption of the 16th Amendment, and in crystal clear language: ``As the present tax is not apportioned, it is forbidden, if direct.`` [/i]

Likewise, the Court stated the same in EISNER v. MACOMBER , 252 U.S. 189 (1920) ``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.`` [/i]

As a matter of fact, the SCOTUS has already pointed out the 16th Amendment conferred no new power of taxation!

``The sixteenth 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 `` See Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 U.S. 103, at page 112. (1916)

Prior to the adoption of the 16th Amendment, in FLINT v. STONE TRACY CO., 220 U.S. 107 (1911), the Court pointed out that taxes could be calculated from profits, gains and other ``income``, without requiring an apportionment of the tax, and do so under Congress`s power to lay an excise tax on the privilege of being a Corporation ___ such a tax did not require apportionment as the taxis considered to be an ``indirect tax``.

The 16th Amendment merely confirmed what the Supreme Court had already ruled in FLINT. Congress had power to calculate taxes from incomes without regard to the rule of apportionment. The 16th amendment has nothing to do with the ``direct tax`` mentioned in our Constitution, PERIOD!

I see you have something in common with Advocate ___ making things up as you go along.

As to your love affair with democracy, that is your choice. I prefer our Constitution`s guarantee to a constitutionally limited ``Republican Form of Government``, guaranteed by Art. 4, Sec. 4 of our Constitution, and a Constitution which also declares: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.[/i]

And what is the summary of such power delegated to the federal government and those reserved by the people within their various states: FEDERALISTS 45 sums it up this way:

``The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation and foreign commerce. ... The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives and liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement and prosperity of the State.``

Apparently you are not very familiar with federalism, our Constitution`s plan.

nihm wrote:

``Wouldn't people in you alternative system, too, still pay taxes after all? ``

You confuse our written Constitution for an alternative system. An alternative system is now in practice and violates the legislative intent of our written Constitution.

Have you missed what I have posted? Of course they would pay taxes, but they would be doing so by their consent which is reflected in our written constitutions, state and federal.

JWK

0 Replies

For a good discussion of the 16th Amendment, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

It completly contradicts John.

0 Replies

john w k wrote:

Apparently you are not very familiar with federalism, our Constitution`s plan.

Oh, absolutely. Like I said before, I'm not American, and to me the words of the founding fathers are not intrinsically holier than those of other wise men of their age. I certainly don't lay claim to any expertise about the Constitution.

That's why I have concentrated on addressing your suggestion only on a philosophical level - ie, whether the kind of arrangement you favour strikes me as fair or unfair, right or wrong.

The only thing I can do regarding Constitution-related arguments is read your posts and Advocate's; read his posting from the 16th Amendment and your take on it; and decide which strikes me as more credible. When I read what Advocate posted from the 16th Amendment it certainly looks to me like it superceded the prior tax arrangement that you still favour, or rather, to be more precise: that it removed the prior constitutional barrier against changing that arrangement.

But again, I know little to nothing about it, I can only come at that part of the argument as an outsider. I've got to say, however, that the Wikipedia page he just linked to also, as an outsider looking in, strikes me as more level-headed than your posts. To be honest those come across as a little myopic - as if you've got your pet cause and you've well practiced yourself in blinking away any evidence or information that doesnt fit in it. I mean, I'm sorry, but that's how you come across.

Which brings me to a question. What is your intention, exactly, with this thread? It's not, apparently, to welcome an open debate that would investigate and question your suggestions. It seems - or seemed - like you're trying to recruit or bolster support for your cause; to spread the message and create support for it. But if that's your intention than you're not doing yourself much of a service by being consistently rude to all your interlocutors. So what is the point of this thread, exactly?

0 Replies

nimh,

I`m really not interested in your philosophical ramblings on taxation, and especially not interested in them when they are not applicable in America`s federalist system under which there are narrowly defined state and federal functions, and, a federal system of taxation to fund federal functions while each state has its own system of taxation to fund state constitutionally authorized functions.

What is the intention of the thread? Perhaps you should go back to the initial post, I believe it is clearly laid out ___ tax reform in such a manner as to control the reckless spending and borrowing of Congress. Did you really miss that part of the post?

In regard to my being rude, you seem to forget you entered this thread with a ``rude`` misrepresentation of what I posted regarding Tiny and the Constitution Party. I never demanded squat from Tiny as you stated. And, your statement that I ``demanded`` her to provide documentation was a dead giveaway of your real intentions for entering the thread. I treated you very gentle considering your purpose for entering the thread which is to provide an Amen echo for those who disagree with me, even though they offer nothing to substantiate their claims.

You latest Amen being to support Advocate`s unsubstantiated and erroneous claim that the 16th Amendment supercedes the rule of apportioning direct taxes. Never mind that the 16th Amendment does not even mention ``direct taxes``. Never mind that I provided quotes from the Supreme Court establishing that direct taxes are still to be apportioned, and, never mind that the SCOTUS has in fact stated the 16th Amendment ``conferred no new power of taxation``___ your aim is to support Advocate, even though Advocate has yet to provide a specific quote from the SCOTUS that the 16th Amendment was intended to and does in fact remove the constitutional requirement that direct taxes are to be apportioned among the states.

JWK

``As the present tax is not apportioned, it is forbidden, if direct.`` ___BROMLEY v. MCCAUGHN, 280 U.S. 124 (1929)

0 Replies

john w k wrote:

What is the intention of the thread? Perhaps you should go back to the initial post, I believe it is clearly laid out ___ tax reform in such a manner as to control the reckless spending and borrowing of Congress. Did you really miss that part of the post?

I read your opening post in full. It did not ask any question. It did not ask for support or cooperation. It did not invite comment. So no, it's not "clearly laid out" what the purpose is. It actually read mostly like a lecture. But a lecture with what aim? Was all you wanted to just tell us all how it really is? But how are you going to get more from that than the egotrip of seeing your words appear on screen at length? Do you have an idea of what you hope to achieve and what would help, or hurt, that end?

Elliptically, you now state your intention as: "tax reform in such a manner as to control the reckless spending and borrowing of Congress." OK, right. So you dont just want to lecture about it, you want actual political action to be undertaken to implement this tax reform. So how's that going to happen? What can you do to help make it happen? Again, are you looking for support? Are you trying to win agreement and sympathy for your argument? How are you going to even stand a chance of achieving that by deriding pretty much everyone who's even bothered to enter your thread?

0 Replies

That was the serious part. Now here's the remaining to-and-fro of the conversation:

john w k wrote:

In regard to my being rude, you seem to forget you entered this thread with a ``rude`` misrepresentation of what I posted regarding Tiny and the Constitution Party. I never demanded squat from Tiny as you stated.

What "rude" misrepresentation? You told her: "Will you please provide the documentation supporting your above assertions?".

john w k wrote:

even though Advocate has yet to provide a specific quote from the SCOTUS that the 16th Amendment was intended to and does in fact remove the constitutional requirement that direct taxes are to be apportioned among the states.

Did you read that Wikipedia page he linked to?

john w k wrote:

I`m really not interested in your philosophical ramblings on taxation, and especially not interested in them when they are not applicable in America`s federalist system

Dude. You asked. Dont you remember? You asked me:

"What do you think about our Constitution`s fair share formula? How would you make members of Congress immediately accountable for reckless spending and borrowing?"And:

"Our federal Constitution`s fair share formula applies to each state`s number of votes in Congress [..]. Since you say you disagree with our Constitution`s fair share formula, is your disagreement across the board, or only if the States are called upon to fill the national treasury?"
You ask, I answer, best I can.

I dont know, John. From asking Tiny to "please provide the documentation" supporting her assertions on the Contitutionalist Party and then deriding her when she does, to asking others like me, "What do you think about our Constitution' s fair share formula?" and then getting angry when we respond how we disagree, you appear to have a kind of selective amnesia...

0 Replies

Advocate wrote:

Are you aware of the following.

AMENDMENT XVI
Passed by Congress July 2, 1909. Ratified February 3, 1913.

Note: Article I, section 9, of the Constitution was modified by amendment 16.

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.

Since this was enacted, we have had an ability-to-pay
(graduated rates) system, which has worked like a jewel.

That is a false statement.
The 16th amendment does NOT allow for discriminatory taxation.
There is absolutely NOTHING in the amendment about that.
The graduated tax rates discriminating against the financially successful
are only the products of leftist SPITE, envy and NAKED USURPATION.
It is the philosophy of the ROBBER.

The federal judiciary is very derelict
in failing to do its job, or in distorting the Constitution for reasons of ideological bias.

DAVID

0 Replies

john w k wrote:

In regard to my being rude, you seem to forget you entered this thread with a ``rude`` misrepresentation of what I posted regarding Tiny and the Constitution Party. I never demanded squat from Tiny as you stated.

nihm wrote,

What "rude" misrepresentation? You told her: "Will you please provide the documentation supporting your above assertions?".[/i]

I told her? No! I asked her "Will you please provide the documentation supporting your above assertions?". That is a very big difference from making a demand of her as you falsely asserted.

john w k wrote:

You latest Amen being to support Advocate`s unsubstantiated and erroneous claim that the 16th Amendment supercedes the rule of apportioning direct taxes. Never mind that the 16th Amendment does not even mention ``direct taxes``. Never mind that I provided quotes from the Supreme Court establishing that direct taxes are still to be apportioned, and, never mind that the SCOTUS has in fact stated the 16th Amendment ``conferred no new power of taxation``___ your aim is to support Advocate, even though Advocate has yet to provide a specific quote from the SCOTUS that the 16th Amendment was intended to and does in fact remove the constitutional requirement that direct taxes are to be apportioned among the states.

nihm wrote,

Did you read that Wikipedia page he linked to?

An irrelevant question! But since you ask the irrelevant question, please provide a specific quote from the SCOTUS from that wikipedia page declaring that the 16th Amendment was intended to and does in fact remove the constitutional requirement that direct taxes are to be apportioned among the states. Simply because a link is provided, and it is alleged information at that link provides an answer to a specific question, does not mean the answer to that question is to be found there. Now provide the quote from the SCOTUS found at wikipedia since you are all wound up on wikipedia. In addition, when did Wikipedia become a reputable source to rely upon regarding constitutional issues? I always thought the written opinions of SCOTUS are in general one source from which to establish constitutional issues.

Finally, I have wasted enough time with your off topic nonsense.

JWK

``As the present tax is not apportioned, it is forbidden, if direct.`` ___BROMLEY v. MCCAUGHN, 280 U.S. 124 (1929)

0 Replies

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Advocate wrote:
Are you aware of the following.

AMENDMENT XVI
Passed by Congress July 2, 1909. Ratified February 3, 1913.

Note: Article I, section 9, of the Constitution was modified by amendment 16.

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.

Since this was enacted, we have had an ability-to-pay
(graduated rates) system, which has worked like a jewel.

That is a false statement.
The 16th amendment does NOT allow for discriminatory taxation.
There is absolutely NOTHING in the amendment about that.
The graduated tax rates discriminating against the financially successful
are only the products of leftist SPITE, envy and NAKED USURPATION.
It is the philosophy of the ROBBER.

DAVID

EXACTLY! Those who support unequal taxation advocate nothing short of outright thievery, especially when the proceeds are used to finance the personal economic needs of individuals who do not even contribute into the federal treasury. The reasoning is as follows:

"Under a just and equal Government, every individual is entitled to protection in the enjoyment of the whole product of his labor, except such portion of it as is necessary to enable Government to protect the rest; this is given only in consideration of the protection offered. In every bounty, exclusive right, or monopoly, Government violates the stipulation on her part; for, by such a regulation, the product of one man's labor is transferred to the use and enjoyment of another. The exercise of such a right on the part of Government can be justified on no other principle, than that the whole product of the labor or every individual is the real property of Government, and may be distributed among the several parts of the community by government discretion; such a supposition would directly involve the idea, that every individual in the community is merely a slave and bondsman to Government, who, although he may labor, is not to expect protection in the product of his labor. An authority given to any Government to exercise such a principle, would lead to a complete system of tyranny."

See Rep. Giles, speaking before Congress February 3rd, 1792

JWK

"To lay with one hand the power of the government on the property of the citizen [the H.R. 25 tax] and with the other to bestow upon favored individuals, to aid private enterprises and build up private fortunes is none the less a robbery because it is done under forms of law and called taxation."[/i] ____ Savings and Loan Assc. v. Topeka,(1875).

0 Replies

Ron Paul on tax reform

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know