joefromchicago wrote: If there's a tax on anything, there has to be a tax rate, even if it is a uniform rate.
The point I was trying to make is that a variable
tax amount does not imply a variable
tax rate. Article I, Section 8: "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be
uniform throughout the United States;"
Because Section 8 did not say, all
taxes, duties, imposts and excises shall be
uniform throughout the United States, some presume that implies that it's constitutional to have
non-uniform tax rates throughout the United States. I claim that a false inference. The adopters intended
only non-uniform tax amounts and NOT
discriminatory non-uniform tax rates throughout the United States. They rightfully anticipated, for example, that federal
property tax amounts would be non-uniform, since the value of an acre of property would be highly variable throughout the US.
The adopters of the federal constitution did not intend that
federal tax rates on citizen's property be variable depending on how much property was owned where by whom; thereby discriminating among citizens such that some had more "equal protection of the laws" than others (see the 9th and 10th Amendments: citizens did not have to wait for the 14th Amendment to have the right of equal protection of the law).
Quote:"Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment X
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."
joefromchicago wrote: Probably because nobody thought that the 16th amendment had anything to do with the 5th amendment. Even the Supreme Court ... where it struck down the pre-16th amendment income tax as unconstitutional, based its decision on the "direct taxation" clause of the Constitution. It had absolutely nothing to say about the 5th amendment.
Why would the Supreme Court have anything to say about the the 5th amendment's effect on the pre-16th amendment income tax, when the pre-16th amendment income tax was a single rate, proportional income tax, and not a variable rate income tax?
joefromchicago wrote: If the phrase "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation" were applied to taxes, then the government would be obliged to give each taxpayer the fair value of all the taxes received from that taxpayer as just compensation.
Exactly! The "fair value" we each and everyone receive from payment of all of our taxes is the securing of our rights. In the case of the income tax, the fair value should be directly proportional to the individual value of the property (i.e., money) right secured.
That of course implies a variable tax amount and a fixed tax rate.
joefromchicago wrote: Explain. In what fashion are these people receiving Bill Gates's money? You still haven't replied to my previous query, which I'll repeat here for your convenience: And what exactly does it mean to transfer money from one taxpayer to another by means of a tax?
Sorry about that. I thought I did explain. I presume it is well known how people are receiving a portion of tax money Gates pays to the government and redistributes to people via federal government entitlement programs. More than 50% of the federal budget goes to pay for so-called entitlement programs. These programs constitute payment of money by the federal government to people for other than providing the federal government goods, services, or commodities. I am not referring to salaries for federal employees or contracts for activities performed for the government by non-government employees. Paying people not to work, not to farm, and not to set aside some of their own funds to satisfy their wants are examples of what I am referring to. Subsidies, grants, and below market interest loans are additional examples.
joefromchicago wrote: Or does there have to be an actual amount of cash placed in someone's pocket (as, e.g., with a social security check) for there to be an impermissible transfer?[/i]
Yes, a payment of cash is a primary example. See previous explanation for a more complete answer.
joefromchicago wrote: If the government today announced that it was taxing McIntosh apples at 5% and Granny Smith apples at 10%, would that be applying an unconstitutionally discriminatory tax among apples?
Yes! That would be a non-uniform apple excise tax throughout the US. It could, for example, discriminate among apple growers according to which make the biggest campaign contributions. I don't think the feds are delegated that power by the constitution.
joefromchicago wrote: Well, you've highlighted one of the major weaknesses of an "original intent" interpretation of the constitution. How do you discern intent? Certainly, one fairly reliable method is to judge intent from subsequent actions. In this case, the congress passed the 16th Amendment in 1909 and it was ratified in 1913.
Wrong! Congress did not
pass the 16th Amendment. More than two-thirds of the Congress merely
proposed it to the states for their
ratification. Therefore, unless one can show that a disproportionate tax rate was intended by the adopters, too, despite the fact that the previous overturned income tax was proportionate, then we must be governed by the fact that the pre-16th Amendment income tax was not disproportionate; it was a proportional tax -- a uniform tax rate income tax.
Quote:"Article V
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate."
joefromchicago wrote: ... so many of the same congressmen who voted on the amendment were still there four years later when they had a chance to vote on the first post-16th Amendment income tax bill. And that tax, as I pointed out, was a progressive tax (and has thereafter always been progressive).
Yes, some of those congressional rascals in advance of the adoption of the 16th Amendment, decided to ignore the rest of the Constitution and unconstitutionally amend the 16th Amendment in a manner they thought would win support of the largest constitutency: the ones not paying any taxes. It was disgraceful and ultimately a probable cause of the demise of our republic.
This is the implication of the history of the failures of republics. For example:
Quote: Alexander Tyler writing about the viability of democracy, in “The Cycle of Democracy”, 1778:
"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasure. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most money from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy followed by a dictatorship."
We can beat this forecast. All we have to do is stop voting ourselves
"money from the public treasure"
joefromchicago wrote: Now, ican, what evidence do you have that the adopters of the amendment (i.e. those state legislators who voted to ratify the amendment) did not intend to approve the adoption of a progressive system of taxation? Well, so far, I see nothing, except a rather weak argument built upon a faulty reading of the 5th Amendment and some notion that, although congress may have intended to have a progressive tax the state legislators had other ideas. That's not evidence.
Yes, it is evidence, whether you think it weak or not. Is it persuasive evidence? Well obviously you are not persuaded, but I am.
Absent evidence that the adopters intended a variable tax rate, a progressive tax rate, a discriminatory tax rate, or a disproportionate tax rate, we are obliged to follow the 9th and 10th Amendment as well as the 5th. They plainly imply that
if the federal government has not been delegated a power which the federal government exercises,
then the federal government is violating the "supreme Law of the Land."
joefromchicago wrote: Just one statement supporting your position that the adopters of the amendment had a different intent than the congressmen who voted for the amendment and who subsequently voted for a progressive tax. Just one measly statement, that's all I'm asking.
Wrong construction!
You've got it backwards. The 9th and 10th Amendments require
you, not me, to provide
at least one piece of evidence supporting your position that the adopters of the amendment had the same intent as the congressmen who, while ignoring the 5th, 9th and 10th Amendments voted for the 16th amendment, and who subsequently voted for a progressive tax.
but often I feel as I imagine a Negro in Amesbury Mass. must feel. Thinking, result oriented people, are not the only ones on the planet, but there are damn few of us and a whole lot of "them"....
Filing at least one in each federal district, (there are 88 divided into 11 judicial appeal districts, each containing one court of appeals) by 88 different people would be a great start. Winning any one of these lawsuits at the district court level does appear now to be improbable. But obtaining a court decision of some kind is assured. Perhaps winning at least one lawsuit on appeal (with a great deal of publicity) may be more likely.
