What's the BEST Income Tax Plan?

[NHSparky]

It must be DUMSHIT week here on this message board.

It's "dumbshit," and yes, I suppose it is since you showed up.

[NHSparky]

Finally, a bit of information for you.  Tell me again how that "lessening the burden on the working man" bullshit is working out again?

http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxdata/show/151.html

[Eupher]

You had ejaculated: "When they start paying income taxes, get back with me, shortbus."

I, then, recalling our historical documents, explained why the "income tax" was enabled, and added: "The federal "income tax" was legislated to lighten the burden of taxation on the working man, and place the tax upon those who are more able to pay, but there are those who argue vehemently that they want to pay that tax too. You're not one of those, are you?"

So, let me explain what I see here:  Although the populace is burdened with the many excise taxes on goods and services, and the "income tax" was enabled to lighten the burden of taxation on working folks, you want them to pay this added tax.  And YOU call ME a "Marxist ****".  Explaining the enabling of the tax was certainly not "pimping a progressive tax structure."

NHSparky writes: "Great, using 120 year old quote before the income tax was even enacted to prove your point."

Yes!  In order to see what the "income tax" is, and why it was enabled, historical documents have to be examined.

It must be DUMSHIT week here on this message board.

Wow. You really ARE an asshole! Congratulations. It's not easy being a noob and yet coming in to shit on the carpet. Tell me, do you scrape your ass on the carpet after you do that? And turn around and sniff the skid mark?

[indago]

And there's a pretty good ****ing reason why it wasn't, and why the 16th Amendment is probably the beginning of the downfall of freedom in this country.

Point out how.

[NHSparky]

Point out how.

Point out how the implementation of the income tax was even necessary.

The scope of government, and by extension, its influence over our lives, was dramatically increased when it tapped into our pockets directly to fund its expansion.

Show me a government that leads to expanded freedom.  Now I'm not going to say we should have NO government--quite the contrary.  But when government tries to expand and provide for people what they can and should do for themselves far beyond what the FF had intended, then it becomes tyrannical in nature.  Funding that expanded government is the purpose of the direct tax, both in the (false) names of "fairness" and the "price we pay for civilization."  So how the hell did we ever manage to survive without a direct tax, pray tell?

The size of government is tied to the wealth of the people, not the other way around.

[Rebel]

I, then, recalling our historical documents, explained why the "income tax" was enabled, and added: "The federal "income tax" was legislated to lighten the burden of taxation on the working man, and place the tax upon those who are more able to pay, but there are those who argue vehemently that they want to pay that tax too. You're not one of those, are you?"

Straight out of the Communist Manifesto.

[CG6468]

I detect the stench of a troll.

[rich_t]

Straight out of the Communist Manifesto.

Indeed.

[indago]

The scope of government, and by extension, its influence over our lives, was dramatically increased when it tapped into our pockets directly to fund its expansion.

Point out just where it is in the Constitution that government was granted this power.

[NHSparky]

Point out just where it is in the Constitution that government was granted this power.

I see reading comprehension is not your strong suit.  I cited specifically the 16th Amendment, but if you want to go further back, you need look no further than Article I, Section 8.  Specifically the first line of it which states, "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises,"

Now go fetch your ****in shine box.

[indago]

I see reading comprehension is not your strong suit.  I cited specifically the 16th Amendment, but if you want to go further back, you need look no further than Article I, Section 8.  Specifically the first line of it which states, "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises,"

Now go fetch your ****in shine box.

I see you conveniently left out the section in the Constitution that directly addresses the direct taxes:

'... direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers ...' (from section 2 of Article I)

'... No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the Census or Enumeration ...' (from section 9 of Article I)

The direct taxes are laid upon the States to pay, not the inhabitants of the States.

Also, the sixteenth amendment federal income tax that you had mentioned is, as we all know — well almost all of us — in the indirect tax category, an excise tax:

Chief Justice Edward D. White, delivering the opinion of the Supreme Court of the United States, and quoting from a previous case, stated: "In the matter of taxation, the Constitution recognizes the two great classes of direct and indirect taxes, and lays down two rules by which their imposition must be governed, namely: The rule of apportionment as to direct taxes, and the rule of uniformity as to duties, imposts and excises."  Mr. Justice William R. Day, delivering the opinion of the United States Supreme Court, explained what an excise tax is: "Excises are "taxes laid upon the manufacture, sale, or consumption of commodities within the country, upon licenses to pursue certain occupations, and upon corporate privileges." Cooley, Const. Lim. 7th ed. 680 ...the requirement to pay such taxes involves the exercise of privileges,..."

The Supreme Court has declared that "the provisions of the 16th Amendment conferred no new power of taxation".  The tax must be in either one category or the other.  It can't be both.

[NHSparky]

And yet it taxes income directly.  Gee, and some people wonder why it should have been declared unconstitutional.

And Article I, Section 2 deals with equal apportionment of monies from the states to the federal government, much like the feds sending the states a bill for their budget, which is pretty much what they did back in the day, and the clause you cite (incompletely) is also what sets up the Census to ensure that apportionment for levy of taxes and representation in Congress was ensured to be fair.

Keep in mind that 200 years ago, the primary tax burden of the citizen/landowner/business owner was to the STATE, not the feds.  The state would then in turn send their apportioned amount to cover the federal burden less levies and other tariffs, etc., covered by Congress under Article I, Section 8. 

That being said, a DIRECT tax under the original Constitution was not only impossible, but ILLEGAL until the passage of the 16th Amendment.  The burden then shifted from the states to the individual; i.e., a direct tax.  Again, how is that "helping" the working man, as you claim?

Now go fetch your ****ing shine box.

[indago]

That being said, a DIRECT tax under the original Constitution was not only impossible, but ILLEGAL until the passage of the 16th Amendment.

Unfortunately for you, John Taylor, an attorney from Virginia, disagrees with you.  The Constitution's mandate for "a proportion between taxation, and representation" was framed in terms of states, not of individuals.  Mr. Taylor argued that the Constitution "is not providing for an equality of taxation among individuals, in proportion to their revenue, but for an equality of taxation between states in proportion to numbers."  "The sum of money necessary to be raised, and not the abstract notion of a tax is the thing to be apportioned."  The object of the direct taxation clause in the Constitution had been "to secure an equal contribution between the states in proportion to numbers; a thing not only possible, but attainable with precision."

It was noted, by Congressman Crumpacker, in the Congressional Record: "...the power granted to the federal Government to impose a direct tax was granted upon condition that the Government should estimate the amount of revenue it might require from that source and apportion the sum among the States on the basis of population as shown by the preceding census.  This plan was intended to give the States the right to contribute their pro rata share from their own revenues without complicating their local systems of taxation.  This was regarded as a matter of much importance to the States.  A direct tax imposed upon the same property by two different governments might involve embarrassment and unnecessary expense in enforcement.  It was believed that the General Government would secure adequate revenues for ordinary purposes from customs and excise taxes, and would only have occasion to levy direct taxes in great national exigencies.  With the power to levy and collect direct taxes vested in the Federal Government it was thought that the States would increase their local levies and pay their respective shares, and to enable them to do so the per capita basis of apportionment was fixed." — Congressional Record - House of Representatives  18 March 1912   pg 3574

[NHSparky]

Holy ****in shit....ONE attorney disagrees with me in a nation of 310 million. Somebody call out the ****in National Guard.

You DO realizes even lawyers can be idiots too, right?

[indago]

Holy ****in shit....ONE attorney disagrees with me in a nation of 310 million. Somebody call out the ****in National Guard.

You DO realizes even lawyers can be idiots too, right?

It's not the lawyer that's the idiot here!

[Eupher]

It's not the lawyer that's the idiot here!

   Don't tell me -- let me guess.

It's the guy presenting the lawyer's stuff, right?

[CG6468]

Looks like someone still can't find the introduction board.

[indago]

That being said, a DIRECT tax under the original Constitution was not only impossible, but ILLEGAL until the passage of the 16th Amendment.  The burden then shifted from the states to the individual; i.e., a direct tax.

You are making the same argument that the Solicitor General for the government made that was totally demolished by the Supreme Court.

The Solicitor General for the government, in an amicus curiae brief, had made the argument: "The Sixteenth Amendment removed the restriction of apportionment as to such income taxes as before were subject thereto."

From the opinion:

We are of opinion, however, that the confusion is not inherent, but rather arises from the conclusion that the 16th Amendment provides for a hitherto unknown power of taxation; that is, a power to levy an income tax which, although direct, should not be subject to the regulation of apportionment applicable to all other direct taxes. And the far-reaching effect of this erroneous assumption will be made clear by generalizing the many contentions advanced in argument to support it

Also:

the contention that the Amendment treats a tax on income as a direct tax although it is relieved from apportionment and is necessarily therefore not subject to the rule of uniformity as such rule only applies to taxes which are not direct, thus destroying the two great classifications which have been recognized and enforced from the beginning, is also wholly without foundation

Also:

Indeed, from another point of view, the Amendment demonstrates that no such purpose was intended, and on the contrary shows that it was drawn with the object of maintaining the limitations of the Constitution and harmonizing their operation.

240 US 1

In another case, on the same day, the Supreme Court declared, in their opinion:

by the previous ruling it was settled that the provisions of the 16th 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, and being placed in the category of direct taxation subject to apportionment by a consideration of the sources from which the income was derived

[obumazombie]

And yet it taxes income directly.  Gee, and some people wonder why it should have been declared unconstitutional.

And Article I, Section 2 deals with equal apportionment of monies from the states to the federal government, much like the feds sending the states a bill for their budget, which is pretty much what they did back in the day, and the clause you cite (incompletely) is also what sets up the Census to ensure that apportionment for levy of taxes and representation in Congress was ensured to be fair.

Keep in mind that 200 years ago, the primary tax burden of the citizen/landowner/business owner was to the STATE, not the feds.  The state would then in turn send their apportioned amount to cover the federal burden less levies and other tariffs, etc., covered by Congress under Article I, Section 8. 

That being said, a DIRECT tax under the original Constitution was not only impossible, but ILLEGAL until the passage of the 16th Amendment.  The burden then shifted from the states to the individual; i.e., a direct tax.  Again, how is that "helping" the working man, as you claim?

Now go fetch your ****ing shine box.

I hope this doesn't derail an interesting confrontation, but "shine box" is that a reference to "Goodfellas" ? I loved that movie.

[UncommonSense]

There should be no tax on government checks. All it does is decrease efficiency by adding a layer of bureaucracy. Just make the payment lower by the amount of tax you were going to take out of it.

Now that is one of the best suggestions I've ever read.

[UncommonSense]

And yet 49.5 percent of Americans have no net tax burden, or a negative one.

Thanks for enlightening us, noob.  Come back when you can't stay so long.

Actually, 49.5% of Americans pay no federal tax.  And just to set the records straight about 30% of those receive money from the government.

Most of the same 49.5% still pay state, local and sales taxes.  Regardless of what you think about the tax structure, let's not propagate falsehoods i.e. that the bottom 50% pay no tax.

To comment on this state of affairs.....

The bottom 49.5% makes 2.5% (As of 2010, down from 4% in 2000) of all the income in America.

The heirs to the Walton family fortune control more wealth then the bottom 30% of America and the Forbes 400 control more wealth then the bottom 50% (some numbers have this as high as the bottom 60%), somewhere around 1.5 trillion.  linky

My question is, do you think taxing the bottom 50% will solve any problems?

Do you think the revenue generated by an increased tax on the bottom 50% (up to, say....what you and I pay) would effect the deficit in any meaningful way?

Or is this issue about treating everyone fairly?

I'm curious what people believe the goal of the tax system should be?  I hear a ton of bits and bites about whats happening and all the unfairness and inequity, on both sides.  But few have stated what the goal of taxes should be.

[NHSparky]

You are making the same argument that the Solicitor General for the government made that was totally demolished by the Supreme Court.

So basically you're saying the SCOTUS isn't capable of making stupid decisions?

I'll throw a few your way, starting with the one you cited, and raising you:

Kelo versus New London
Dred Scott decision
Plessy versus Ferguson
Schenck versus United States
Korematsu versus United States

And while you're at it, you can throw in Roe versus Wade, considering that the SCOTUS should never have heard the case in the first place.

Now go fetch your ****ing shine box.

[NHSparky]

Now that is one of the best suggestions I've ever read.

And yet it's your hero Billy Jeff that started it.  Suck it.

[NHSparky]

The bottom 49.5% makes 2.5% (As of 2010, down from 4% in 2000) of all the income in America.

Um, bullshit.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html

They get their data from the IRS.

In 2009 they earned 14 percent of the income, and paid barely than 2 percent of the taxes, with an effective tax rate of 1.85 percent.

By comparison, the top 10 percent (of which I am a member, but only just) earned 43.2 percent of the income, and paid 70.5 percent of the taxes with an effective tax rate of 18.05 percent--and I pay more than that.  Shine box.  You.  Fetch.

[indago]

Actually, 49.5% of Americans pay no federal tax.

That's BULLSHIT, and everybody knows it — well, everybody except you...

POST 1

POST 2

POST 3