Did the state make you great?

[canndo]

Its tricky thats for sure. Considering the top 1% pays 30+ percent of the total taxes, government is FORCED to rely on them.
That is also the reason the government was never intended to receive taxes. The federal government was designed to rely on donations from each individual state.

That isn't what the U.S. Constitution says althor.


It is curious that the right contends that we owe our prosperity to corporations, that we are beholding to them for our jobs and our paychecks and yet we owe our government nothing. Seems a little upside down.

 

[althor]

That isn't what the U.S. Constitution says althor.


It is curious that the right contends that we owe our prosperity to corporations, that we are beholding to them for our jobs and our paychecks and yet we owe our government nothing. Seems a little upside down.

Does the right actually say that? That is almost as backwards as saying we owe it to the government, neither is true.

 

[canndo]

With all due respect to everyone that's given their two cents on althors comment, all of you are venturing away from the point he was making.

It doesn't matter if the federal government was funded by tariffs or that the constitution was amended.
His statement stands on it's own, the constitution was originally written so the federal government had the powers to collect taxes from individual states and not from it's citizens.

Where does it say that Congress has the power only to tax states?

 

[bedspirit]

Well, you mentioned socialism, so what was I supposed to think you meant?

I said Libertarian Socialist, so that's what you were supposed to think. I realize that the word "socialist" is one that we've all been conditioned to have a knee jerk reaction to, but you gotta get passed that to know what I'm talking about. It's just something I ran across on Wikipedia that sounded interesting. It's a philosophy that insists on a small centralized government, the way Ron Paul would, but it also would allow more employee ownership in the business they're working at. Libertarians are often criticized for allowing employers to be oppressive dicks all in the name of freedom, this would be a way of minimizing that. If employees had a vote in the direction their company was taking like a shareholder does, how many would vote to close down shop and move overseas?

Again, I'm not preaching this as the new direction we should take. Just throwing around ideas.

 

[canndo]

Does the right actually say that? That is almost as backwards as saying we owe it to the government, neither is true.

The right actually says that althor.


they say that we must revere corporations and businesses because they are the "job creators" They say that we must not do anything to offend our benefactors such as insisting on regulations or taxation.

And then, as I said, they claim that we owe the government nothing for their services, we owe them nothing for whatever attempts they make at leveling the playing field between individuals and businesses.

 

[Mr Neutron]

I said Libertarian Socialist, so that's what you were supposed to think. I realize that the word "socialist" is one that we've all been conditioned to have a knee jerk reaction to, but you gotta get passed that to know what I'm talking about. It's just something I ran across on Wikipedia that sounded interesting. It's a philosophy that insists on a small centralized government, the way Ron Paul would, but it also would allow more employee ownership in the business they're working at. Libertarians are often criticized for allowing employers to be oppressive dicks all in the name of freedom, this would be a way of minimizing that. If employees had a vote in the direction their company was taking like a shareholder does, how many would vote to close down shop and move overseas?

Again, I'm not preaching this as the new direction we should take. Just throwing around ideas.

OK, I'll respond to you because at least I don't get a headache, trying to figure out what you're trying to say.
How do you allow more employee ownership? Isn't it allowed now?

 

[Mr Neutron]

Where does it say that Congress has the power only to tax states?

Where does it say American's wages are taxable?

 

[bedspirit]

OK, I'll respond to you because at least I don't get a headache, trying to figure out what you're trying to say.
How do you allow more employee ownership? Isn't it allowed now?

It is allowed now. I actually didn't know how they were going to do it. From what I can tell after reading through some of their documents, it looks like some kind of co ownership would be a part of employment for all companies... I still don't know if that's a good idea. I can see a lot of positives to it. For large companies, I think it matters very little, but I could see this being an issue for a small company. If I had some little home business where I employ a couple of people, I wouldn't want to be overruled by my secretary and the delivery guy. I don't know. I gotta think about that.

 

[bedspirit]

Where does it say American's wages are taxable?

Article 1 section 8.

It just gives them the power to tax. I don't see any restrictions that exempt wages or anything.

 

[canndo]

Where does it say American's wages are taxable?

It doesn't Mr. Neutron

"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; "

Nothing in there prohibits the collection of taxes upon individuals. this was not amended, this was the original proclaimation and it says nothing about "volunteering" or about collecting funds from states. It gives the Congress the power to lay and collect in any means necesssary so long as they be uniform.

 

[canndo]

It is interesting how these simple statements are misread or misinterpreted over and over again. Althos seems to think it reads differently than it does. Mr. Neutron seems to think that there are limits that do not exist - and most on the right just ignore the "provide for.... general welfare". Interestingly, health care for all could easily be argued as "general welfare".

 

[Samwell Seed Well]

It doesn't Mr. Neutron

"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; "

Nothing in there prohibits the collection of taxes upon individuals. this was not amended, this was the original proclaimation and it says nothing about "volunteering" or about collecting funds from states. It gives the Congress the power to lay and collect in any means necesssary so long as they be uniform.

lmfao , i cant believe you actually had to post this for them to know it exist, my Mother at 70 a citizen of this country for 10 years knows more about the constitution then most of the posters here, including myself lmfao, good one canndo

It is interesting how these simple statements are misread or misinterpreted over and over again. Althos seems to think it reads differently than it does. Mr. Neutron seems to think that there are limits that do not exist - and most on the right just ignore the "provide for.... general welfare". Interestingly, health care for all could easily be argued as "general welfare".

country of Narcissistic semi-fascist, imho

 

[canndo]

lmfao , i cant believe you actually had to post this for them to know it exist, my Mother at 70 a citizen of this country for 10 years knows more about the constitution then most of the posters here, including myself lmfao, good one canndo




country of Narcissistic semi-fascist, imho

I have read it many dozens of times, it is a wonderful document but it is easy to forget the particulars within. I don't blame folks for not knowing what is in it, I do blame them for misrepresenting what is in it.

 

[althor]

Well I do have to go out on a limb and admit that I read that in an article that has been proven entirely false. My mistake.

 

[UncleBuck]

Where does it say American's wages are taxable?

something about collecting tax from incomes, from whatever source derived.

righties don't generally get beyond the second amendment and they skip most of the first.

 

[canndo]

Well I do have to go out on a limb and admit that I read that in an article that has been proven entirely false. My mistake.

You would let someone else tell you what is in a document that takes no longer than 15 minutes to read for yourself?

 

[canndo]

Furthermore Althos, you seemed to have stated your post as fact. I do not argue that there may be some evidence of your statement in the Federalist Papers, I don't have them as well in my memory.

 

[Mr Neutron]

It doesn't Mr. Neutron

"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; "

Nothing in there prohibits the collection of taxes upon individuals. this was not amended, this was the original proclaimation and it says nothing about "volunteering" or about collecting funds from states. It gives the Congress the power to lay and collect in any means necesssary so long as they be uniform.

Disregarding the question as to whether or not the 16th was ratified properly... what about, "direct taxes shall be apportioned"?

 

[Mr Neutron]

It is interesting how these simple statements are misread or misinterpreted over and over again. Althos seems to think it reads differently than it does. Mr. Neutron seems to think that there are limits that do not exist - and most on the right just ignore the "provide for.... general welfare". Interestingly, health care for all could easily be argued as "general welfare".

Yes, it is interesting how so many can read the same document and still don't get it. "General welfare" does not mean the government has control over every aspect of our lives. In fact, if read with the perspective of our FF, it means that government provides for our general welfare by staying the hell out of our business.

 

[NoDrama]

something about collecting tax from incomes, from whatever source derived.

righties don't generally get beyond the second amendment and they skip most of the first.

Define income.

Income is NOT just any money you get, it actually is defined by the IRS and wages is not in there.