Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The more I read The Constitution, the more I learn.
The 16th amendment for instance.....it reads,
"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census "
The amendmen became law In 1913.
While I had been aware of the contents of he amendment, I did not know that for most of our history, people under a certain income level did not pay federal income taxes.
It appears that all revenue acts throughout our history have had an minimum income requirement.
For instance, the Revenue Act of 1861 had a 3% income tax on income over $800 annually.
Now, that being said, we still have a constitutional limit on what tax revenue can be spent on.
If anyone can provide something in the constitution which allows for tax revenue to be taken from one citizen and given to another, I'd be interested to see it.
Your right...I often wonder where in the constitution did it state taking taxes from U.S taxpayers and giving it to foreign nations, rebuilding their roads and schools while ignoring those that same taxpayers that the constitution cover....very good post indeed....
Edit: You are referring to foreign aid of course?
Last edited by blackandproud; 01-12-2012 at 04:49 PM..
The more I read The Constitution, the more I learn.
The 16th amendment for instance.....it reads,
"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census "
The amendmen became law In 1913.
While I had been aware of the contents of he amendment, I did not know that for most of our history, people under a certain income level did not pay federal income taxes.
It appears that all revenue acts throughout our history have had an minimum income requirement.
For instance, the Revenue Act of 1861 had a 3% income tax on income over $800 annually.
Now, that being said, we still have a constitutional limit on what tax revenue can be spent on.
If anyone can provide something in the constitution which allows for tax revenue to be taken from one citizen and given to another, I'd be interested to see it.
Its in the interpreted view of the "general welfare" clause.
Madison, really the man who wrote the constitution, described it this way. A group of french refugees came to the United States seeking asylum. A bill went before congress to provide the french refugees with some money and assistance.
Madison said that he couldn't find a part of the constitution that would allow him to pass a law giving money from a constituent to a non citizen.
In other words he is saying that it is perfectly fine to tax from one citizen and give to another, but not to non citizens. Foreign aid should be abolished.
If anyone can provide something in the constitution which allows for tax revenue to be taken from one citizen and given to another, I'd be interested to see it.
Besides the fact that only 5.43 cents per your tax dollar goes directly to others, as has been pointed out on numerous occasions (just like progressive taxes) the Tax and Spend Clause is the source for constitutional support of welfare spending by the federal government.
Besides the fact that only 5.43 cents per your tax dollar goes directly to others, as has been pointed out on numerous occasions (just like progressive taxes) the Tax and Spend Clause is the source for constitutional support of welfare spending by the federal government.
Its in the interpreted view of the "general welfare" clause.
Madison, really the man who wrote the constitution, described it this way. A group of french refugees came to the United States seeking asylum. A bill went before congress to provide the french refugees with some money and assistance.
Madison said that he couldn't find a part of the constitution that would allow him to pass a law giving money from a constituent to a non citizen.
In other words he is saying that it is perfectly fine to tax from one citizen and give to another, but not to non citizens. Foreign aid should be abolished.
"But the meaning to the nation was plain: no local interests could be provided aid from the new federal government. The welfare concerned the wholesomeness of the Union, the federal level, the matter of binding the states together for mutual benefit, the health of the arrangement of the separated powers, the federalist structure, not the well-being of groups or individuals, whether travelers, farmers, manufacturers, shop-keepers, freight-haulers or consumers, etc. The strongest reading would be that the benefit of this "general welfare" had to be a benefit for all rather than some people, without it being a direct benefit to every individual. It seems it had to be limited to "public use" in the sense of the Fifth Amendment."
The 5th amendment......pay special attention to the last sentence.
"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
In my opinion, it's reasonable to believe that my income is my property.
"But the meaning to the nation was plain: no local interests could be provided aid from the new federal government. The welfare concerned the wholesomeness of the Union, the federal level, the matter of binding the states together for mutual benefit, the health of the arrangement of the separated powers, the federalist structure, not the well-being of groups or individuals, whether travelers, farmers, manufacturers, shop-keepers, freight-haulers or consumers, etc. The strongest reading would be that the benefit of this "general welfare" had to be a benefit for all rather than some people, without it being a direct benefit to every individual. It seems it had to be limited to "public use" in the sense of the Fifth Amendment."
The 5th amendment......pay special attention to the last sentence.
"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
In my opinion, it's reasonable to believe that my income is my property.
and as I'm sure you know article 1 section 8 allow congress to lay and collect taxes... They are free to tax anything they wish, your income, your property and your wealth. That coupled with the general welfare clause and the SCOTUS interpretation of that clause allows congress to fund, support and provide for the general welfare.
The more I read The Constitution, the more I learn.
The 16th amendment for instance.....it reads,
"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census "
The amendment became law In 1913.
While I had been aware of the contents of he amendment, I did not know that for most of our history, people under a certain income level did not pay federal income taxes.
It appears that all revenue acts throughout our history have had an minimum income requirement.
For instance, the Revenue Act of 1861 had a 3% income tax on income over $800 annually.
Now, that being said, we still have a constitutional limit on what tax revenue can be spent on.
If anyone can provide something in the constitution which allows for tax revenue to be taken from one citizen and given to another, I'd be interested to see it.
There is an argument that wages/salaries are not income.
CDA man places tax question before the Supreme Court
"Does the 16th Amendment provide Congress with an exception to the Constitution's apportionment clause regarding its authority to levy a direct tax?"
COEUR D'ALENE, Idaho:
Quote:
.....The purpose of this area of research was to discover what the intent of the American People was when they lobbied Congress and their state legislatures for an income tax amendment to the Constitution. Hart believes an objective review of the record proves that wages are not income and that the 16th Amendment does not empower Congress to levy a new kind of tax not authorized by the Constitution. According to Hart, "The purpose of the 16th Amendment was to bring tax relief to wage earners."....
Constitutional Income:o You Have Any :: Supreme Court Petition (http://www.constitutionalincome.com/sup_ct_pet.php - broken link)
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
o You Have Any :: Supreme Court Petition (http://www.constitutionalincome.com/sup_ct_pet.php - broken link)
