Did the state make you great?

Red1966

Red1966

Well-Known Member
Samwell Seed Well said:
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
Click to expand...
Quite often it is the case that immigrants know our Constitution better than citizens born here. We take our blessings for granted.
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
Red1966 said:
Any power not expressly given to the Federal government by the Constitution is forbidden by the Constitution.
Click to expand...
OMFG that is a nobel winning interpretation there.

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.
 
Red1966

Red1966

Well-Known Member
NoDrama said:
According to the US Constitution, the people themselves ordained that a constitution would help the general welfare of the US, not actually give government power over others happiness. I sometimes wonder if people really DO think the government is responsible for their happiness.
Click to expand...
Some do!..............................lol...............
 
B

beenthere

New Member
canndo said:
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.
Click to expand...
Sorry canndo but you are wrong, you're missing Article 1 Section 2.

And yes it was amended, by the 16th amendment that gave congress the power to tax without apportionment among the states.

I believe Mr. Neutron was referring to the federalist papers when the federal government could not demand taxes from the states, so the relied on excise taxes and voluntary revenue from the states.


Article 1 Section 2: (Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.)
 
bedspirit

bedspirit

Active Member
beenthere said:
Sorry canndo but you are wrong, you're missing Article 1 Section 2.

And yes it was amended, by the 16th amendment that gave congress the power to tax without apportionment among the states.

I believe Mr. Neutron was referring to the federalist papers when the federal government could not demand taxes from the states, so the relied on excise taxes and voluntary revenue from the states.


Article 1 Section 2: (Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.)
Click to expand...
Dude, I gotta get your source for this stuff. Please. Give me a website because I gotta figure out their agenda.

The key word in Section 2 was "direct". That had always been interpreted as property tax. The definition of "direct" changed a little in 1895 when the Supreme Court ruled that taxing the income from property was also considered a direct tax. Even then, they still didn't consider tax on wages to be a direct tax. So you're wrong, the federal government could always collect taxes on wages and salaries.

What I find fascinating about this is that someone went through great lengths to make that argument. It's easily proven wrong, but I wonder why make the argument in the first place? What difference does it make if the founders had intended for the federal government to collect income taxes? Is this part of some weak anti tax propaganda movement?

If it was you, on your own, who just happened to be reading the constitution and didn't know the significance of the word "direct" then that's totally understandable. It would be an easy mistake to make. But I kind of doubt that you just sit around reading the Constitution for a good time.

-update-

I'm just going to throw this out there: Capital gains is probably considered a direct tax. While, I'm sure there are exceptions, I consider this to be the rich asshole tax. Did some rich assholes make a website somewhere that wanted to get rid of the sixteenth amendment so they could sit on their asses collecting dividend checks and not pay a dime in taxes? Then they create some retarded argument to make regular working people think that they can avoid paying taxes too if only we were to lose the sixteenth amendment? They just intentionally mislead people to get what they want? That sounds about right.
 
Mr Neutron

Mr Neutron

Well-Known Member
NoDrama said:
Define income.

Income is NOT just any money you get, it actually is defined by the IRS and wages is not in there.
Click to expand...
What a coincidence that you would ask that question. The word income is not defined in the Constitution, so we must look elsewhere for it's meaning. Thankfully, the Supreme Court has provided us with the definition in Eisner vs McCumber as "gains or profits from some activity".
This does not mean wages paid in lieu of labor, there is no profit or gain with wages, it's an even swap.
The SC has also said that "your labor is your private property" and, my favorite, "in substance, the court holds that the 16th amendment did not empower the federal government to levy a new tax".
 
bedspirit

bedspirit

Active Member
Mr. Neutron,

You seem like a pretty smart guy. Look up direct taxes on google and you'll find exactly what that refers to and how it's meaning has changed. You see the the supreme court case of Pollock v Farmers' Loan and Trust Co. and you'll see how it the definition of direct was refined. You will also find that wages and salaries and income that came from labor was not effected by that case. It is not an income from property. Your labor is not considered property by the constitution. If you invested in a company and you receive a dividend check then that is income from property. If it weren't for the 16th amendment, you wouldn't have to pay the federal government anything for that income.

Do you see the difference?
 
bedspirit

bedspirit

Active Member
Mr Neutron said:
What a coincidence that you would ask that question. The word income is not defined in the Constitution, so we must look elsewhere for it's meaning. Thankfully, the Supreme Court has provided us with the definition in Eisner vs McCumber as "gains or profits from some activity".
This does not mean wages paid in lieu of labor, there is no profit or gain with wages, it's an even swap.
The SC has also said that "your labor is your private property" and, my favorite, "in substance, the court holds that the 16th amendment did not empower the federal government to levy a new tax".
Click to expand...
When did they say that labor is property?
 
Mr Neutron

Mr Neutron

Well-Known Member
canndo said:
A minimum of food and shelter for all is not out of the question - welfare could encompass those things and indeed we provide for that. I don't think a case could be made for lawnmowers.
Click to expand...
A minimum? How magnanimous of you. Why only a minimum, though? I mean, if you want them to be happy and healthy so they aren't loading up the healthcare system, we need to make sure they are fed well and have a nice place to stay, right? You can't expect anybody to feel good about themselves eating duke's supplied, government approved beans and rice, while those rich folks are having steaks and lobsters.
Just like the minimum wage, why not just make it $25/hr? Then you're going to have to raise welfare benefits, too. Can't leave anybody out of the "free shit" parade.
Who makes these decisions? What motivates them? Who pays for your ideology?
If you don't give them lawnmowers, then the grass will grow too high and lower the property values of their neighbors, so... you really need to give 'em everything. Throw in a couple vacations to Hawaii while you're at it.
 
bedspirit

bedspirit

Active Member
Mr Neutron said:
What a coincidence that you would ask that question. The word income is not defined in the Constitution, so we must look elsewhere for it's meaning. Thankfully, the Supreme Court has provided us with the definition in Eisner vs McCumber as "gains or profits from some activity".
This does not mean wages paid in lieu of labor, there is no profit or gain with wages, it's an even swap.
The SC has also said that "your labor is your private property" and, my favorite, "in substance, the court holds that the 16th amendment did not empower the federal government to levy a new tax".
Click to expand...
You tricky motherfucker. I see where you're getting the labor being private property thing. You're getting that from the dissenting opinion from the Slaughterhouse cases. DISSENTING. That argument lost. What the bloody hell?
 
Mr Neutron

Mr Neutron

Well-Known Member
bedspirit said:
mr. Neutron,

you seem like a pretty smart guy. Look up direct taxes on google and you'll find exactly what that refers to and how it's meaning has changed. You see the the supreme court case of pollock v farmers' loan and trust co. And you'll see how it the definition of direct was refined. You will also find that wages and salaries and income that came from labor was not effected by that case. It is not an income from property. Your labor is not considered property by the constitution. If you invested in a company and you receive a dividend check then that is income from property. If it weren't for the 16th amendment, you wouldn't have to pay the federal government anything for that income.

Do you see the difference?
Click to expand...
dau.......
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top