Did the state make you great?

[bedspirit]

... but not wages.

That power came from Article 1 section 8. Your argument to make income taxes on labor a direct tax is invalid... and fucked up. I want the article you got that shit from.

edit

The reason some desperately want to call income tax a direct tax is because Article 1 Section 2 of the constitution would prohibit the federal government from collecting it. Direct tax would refer to property tax and later broadened to mean capital gains as well. Some of these guys are trying to argue that labor is property too making it unconstitutional to tax wages (pre 16th amendment). Some even say that the 16th Amendment is invalid meaning the government is illegally taxing it's citizens. Currently, most constitutional scholars consider income tax from wages to be an indirect tax, therefore fair game under Article 1 Section 8.

 

[canndo]

Why not? (10 characters)

It is not essential for any of the things I mentioned. This slippery slope argument doesn't hold up, it never has, it is an argument that deeds always beget other deeds and there is no logic to it.


Make us an argument for everyone in America being entitled to a lawnmower.

 

[canndo]

Any power not expressly given to the Federal government by the Constitution is forbidden by the Constitution.

\
15 minutes to read, a lifetime to understand. Where exactly do you read this?

 

[canndo]

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.)

And what does this mean to you Beenthere, that refutes my statment?

 

[canndo]

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.

The same slippery slope argument goes for this one as well. A minimum is just that. A minimum will have them healthy, happy? no one can judge that nor is there any constitutional madate for happiness. Why is it that only the more to the right have a belief that most people will be satisfied with a minimum? Why is it that the right so often presumes that no one who is not forced to work for their very survival will ever work to aquire more than that? Why is it that the right contends that the rich will not work unless they are allowed to keep stuff but the poor will never work if they have anything they didn't work for in the first place?

 

[beenthere]

That power came from Article 1 section 8. Your argument to make income taxes on labor a direct tax is invalid... and fucked up. I want the article you got that shit from.

edit

The reason some desperately want to call income tax a direct tax is because Article 1 Section 2 of the constitution would prohibit the federal government from collecting it. Direct tax would refer to property tax and later broadened to mean capital gains as well. Some of these guys are trying to argue that labor is property too making it unconstitutional to tax wages (pre 16th amendment). Some even say that the 16th Amendment is invalid meaning the government is illegally taxing it's citizens. Currently, most constitutional scholars consider income tax from wages to be an indirect tax, therefore fair game under Article 1 Section 8.

Then explain why it took the 16th amendment to give the federal government the power to levy taxes on incomes, and why did the SCOTUS rule that a tax on income was unconstitutional.

 

[bedspirit]

Then explain why it took the 16th amendment to give the federal government the power to levy taxes on incomes, and why did the SCOTUS rule that a tax on income was unconstitutional.

I did if you go back a page or two. It started with the case of Pollock v. Farmers' Loan and Trust Co. The Supreme Court ruled that the "direct" tax referred to in Article 1 Section 2 not only meant property tax but also taxing the income from property (capital gains, rent, etc). This meant the federal government could no longer tax those rich assholes who sit around by their pool waiting for their dividend checks in the mail. Hence the 16th Amendment. It was passed so that landlords and investors had to pay taxes just like everyone else. It never had anything to do with income from wages. Taxes on wages were always considered an indirect tax and the 16th amendment didn't have anything to do with that.

 

[beenthere]

I did if you go back a page or two. It started with the case of Pollock v. Farmers' Loan and Trust Co. The Supreme Court ruled that the "direct" tax referred to in Article 1 Section 2 not only meant property tax but also taxing the income from property (capital gains, rent, etc). This meant the federal government could no longer tax those rich assholes who sit around by their pool waiting for their dividend checks in the mail. Hence the 16th Amendment. It was passed so that landlords and investors had to pay taxes just like everyone else. It never had anything to do with income from wages. Taxes on wages were always considered an indirect tax and the 16th amendment didn't have anything to do with that.

I believe you have it backwards. Wages and salaries were always considered direct taxes, hence the the federal government never had the power to tax them, nor did they tax them.
Prior to Pollock v. Farmers Loan & Trust, all unearned income from property, dividends, interests, etc were considered indirect and subject to taxation.

For 126 years, from 1787 (Us Constitution) to the ratification of the 16th amendment in 1913, can you give an example of the federal government levying taxes on wages or salaries, notwithstanding the brief and temporary tax acts during the civil war?

 

[Rob Roy]

Then explain why it took the 16th amendment to give the federal government the power to levy taxes on incomes, and why did the SCOTUS rule that a tax on income was unconstitutional.

When one party can (the federal government) grant itself more power (the power to tax) the limits of government are bounded only by the imaginations of those that govern.

 

[canndo]

When one party can (the federal government) grant itself more power (the power to tax) the limits of government are bounded only by the imaginations of those that govern.

WE are those that govern, why do you insist upon casting government as apart from the people? We grant the government the power it has, as a people. There may be some problems with it, but there is no ruling class in America.

 

[bedspirit]

I believe you have it backwards. Wages and salaries were always considered direct taxes, hence the the federal government never had the power to tax them, nor did they tax them. <br>
Prior to Pollock v. Farmers Loan &amp; Trust, all unearned income from property, dividends, interests, etc were considered indirect and subject to taxation.<br>
<br>
For 126 years, from 1787 (Us Constitution) to the ratification of the 16th amendment in 1913, can you give an example of the federal government levying taxes on wages or salaries, notwithstanding the brief and temporary tax acts during the civil war?

Oh my God, dude! You have all the answers at your finger tips! After the civil war , the next example would be in 1894 with the Wilson-Gorman tariff. The tax rate was 2% on incomes over $4000. This is why there was a Supreme Court case a year later that refined the meaning of "direct tax"
As far as you interpretation of direct tax, you're way off. This was from Chief Justice Fuller in the majority opinion from Pollock v Farmer's Loan and Trust co.

First. We adhere to the opinion already announced—that, taxes on real estate being indisputably direct taxes, taxes on the rents or income of real estate are equally direct taxes.
Second. We are of opinion that taxes on personal property, or on the income of personal property, are likewise direct taxes.
Third. The tax imposed by sections 27 to 37, inclusive, of the act of 1894, so far as it falls on the income of real estate, and of personal property, being a direct tax, within the meaning of the constitution, and therefore unconstitutional and void, because not apportioned according to representation, all those sections, constituting one entire scheme of taxation, are necessarily invalid

Did you read that? Direct taxes defined for you. How about other types of incomes like wages and salaries? Are those direct taxes? Let's check the internets. Wikipedia:

The Supreme Court did not rule that all income taxes were direct taxes. Instead, the Court held that generally income taxes are indirect taxes (excises) authorized by the United States Constitution in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1

Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pollock_v._Farmers'_Loan_&_Trust_Co.

I hope that clears everything up for you. Now can you do me a favor and give me a link to the propaganda website that fucked your head up on this issue?

 

[Rob Roy]

WE are those that govern, why do you insist upon casting government as apart from the people? We grant the government the power it has, as a people. There may be some problems with it, but there is no ruling class in America.

Yes of course, theoretically the people govern...of course that is a fantasy perpetrated from the onset.

How did the government get the power to make a plant illegal ? Did "the people" give them that power or did they take it ?

How did the government get the power to grant itself power. Where were "the people" then ?

 

[Lululady]

Socialist countries are worse off than we, sometimes much worse.

If you define "better off" by living standards, I'm afraid that the Scandinavian countries have higher living standards, on average, than we do. I assume you consider Sweden and Norway to be socialist. Switzerland has the highest average of all countries. One of the Arab countries comes in at #2, either Qatar or UAE, I forget which. We also have one of the highest rates of poverty among the developed world. How do you define well/worse off? We do have the most folks in the top 100 richest people in the world though, and we spend a whole lot more on our military than anybody else, more than the next 10 countries combined. Unfortunately, it's a big club and we ain't in it.