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 reason the 16th Amendment gave the government no new power of taxation was that it only confirmed a power that had existed in its entirety from the very beginning.
"U.S. Supreme Court case in which the court voided portions of the Wilson-Gorman Tariff Act of 1894 that imposed a direct tax on the incomes of American citizens and corporations, thus declaring the federal income tax unconstitutional."
Now, just to be clear, this is before the government did things like play with their imaginary friends and make up a new word definition for "voluntary". It was also an epoch in this nation's history before resident beltway retards revised history.
You just don't recognize when you've gotten in way over your head, do you. The Wilson-Gorman Tariff Act of 1894 is the act that the Pollock decision uniquely found unconstitutional, and the implications of that ruling are specifically what was taken down by passage of the 16th Amendment. To quote from the retrospective ruling in Bowers v. Kerbaugh-Empire handed down in 1926, "It was not the purpose or effect of that amendment to bring any new subject within the taxing power. Congress already had power to tax all incomes."
Quote:
Originally Posted by summers73
Now, just to be clear, this is before the government played did things like play with their imaginary friends and make up a new word definition for "voluntary".
LOL. It was quite clearly before you learned what the actual definition of a "voluntary tax system" is, since that occured only just the other night, and it doesn't seem that the lesson has necessarily been fully absorbed just yet. Dedication to ignorance is not an admirable thing...
You just don't recognize when you've gotten in way over your head, do you. The Wilson-Gorman Tariff Act of 1894 is the act that the Pollock decision uniquely found unconstitutional, and the implications of that ruling are specifically what was taken down by passage of the 16th Amendment. To quote from the retrospective ruling in Bowers v. Kerbaugh-Empire handed down in 1926, "It was not the purpose or effect of that amendment to bring any new subject within the taxing power. Congress already had power to tax all incomes."
Nah, I'll stick to believing the conclusion in encyclopedia Britannica over someone who is assimilated by the DC collective.
Quote:
LOL. It was quite clearly before you learned what the actual definition of a "voluntary tax system" is, since that occured only just the other night, and it doesn't seem that the lesson has necessarily been fully absorbed just yet. Dedication to ignorance is not an admirable thing...
When I find the matching definition of "voluntary" in a legitimate dictionary such as Oxford, Wordnet, or Webster's, I'll believe it. Until then, it is filed under the whimsical nonsensical babbling of government.
16th amendment gave the government no new power of taxation.
Anyone who can read the Amendment can see that it gave Congress the ability to tax income. What was not added was any POWER to collect taxes for reasons not enumerated in Article 1 Section 8.
Now I know that those who do not know how the english language works will misread Article 1 Section 8. The real debate that we should be focused on should be to repeal all Unconstitutional legislation that uses Federal taxation to fund items not mentioned in the Section.
Interestingly, in this Amendment there is no mention of redistribution of wealth. You would think that the Collectivists who supported it would have put that in to further their sinister plans. The progressive nature of it is on very shaky ground. It seems to be counterintuitive to every principle in the entire Constitution. It appears obvious also that it still a far cry from being "uniform throughout the United States." It goes without saying that that wording can be twisted as much as one's mind is too.
Obviously, the Collectivists interpret the income tax as uniform if the same scheme of redistribution of wealth is used throughout the country. No brainer.
People who believe that all men are created equal and should have the same rights or freedoms will see the progressive income tax as selective punishment. Obviously not everyone is "worthy" of the same level of freedom in the Collectivists eyes.
Now the elitists will garble theories of "maginal utility" to justify the extortion that they advocate. When they speak though, remember that their argument, must at the same time be mirrored by an "unspoken" argument being applied to actual human beings too. These people feel that it is their "right" to denegrate the freedom of real people that they see only as a means to implement their nefarious plans of redistribution of wealth.
When the Collectivists "justify" theft of their fellow citizens for "noble" causes do not fail to squarely look at their "means". Stalin, Mao, Hitler, and every other idiotic megalomaniac had "enlightened ends". Mass graves are always filled by "good intentions". Individual Collectivists are no different in nature. They care not of what evil must be undertaken to produce "good".
As you become fatigued by their seemingly relentless denial of common sense realize that they are the same as any Tyrant. Individual people do not matter in their minds in the least. It is only all people bending to and serving their fantasies that they see as "right". If you do not see this you will never understand the hidden basis that makes their arguments "logical". You must assume the dictatorial viewpoint when dealing with them. When you view what they say from this viewpoint their arguments begin to make "sense".
Nah, I'll stick to believing the conclusion in encyclopedia Britannica over someone who is assimilated by the DC collective.
When I find the matching definition of "voluntary" in a legitimate dictionary such as Oxford, Wordnet, or Webster's, I'll believe it. Until then, it is filed under the whimsical nonsensical babbling of government.
Your preferences for continued dedication to ignorance are noted. Regardless, the government has always had the power to levy income taxes, and as the filer prepares his or her own tax bill, the system is voluntary. These facts are not altered by either refusal or inability to recognize them.
Last edited by saganista; 09-23-2009 at 07:32 AM..
The real debate that we should be focused on should be to repeal all Unconstitutional legislation that uses Federal taxation to fund items not mentioned in the Section.
Since Article I doesn't enumerate what the Federal government can or cannot fund, I would love to here your interpretation of what is or what isn't a Constitutional expenditure.
Quote:
It seems to be counterintuitive to every principle in the entire Constitution.
What principle would that be?
Quote:
People who believe that all men are created equal and should have the same rights or freedoms will see the progressive income tax as selective punishment.
People like Adam Smith?
"The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. A tax upon house-rents, therefore, would in general fall heaviest upon the rich; and in this sort of inequality there would not, perhaps, be anything very unreasonable. It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion."
Adam Smith - An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations - The Adam Smith Institute (http://www.adamsmith.org/smith/won-b5-c2-article-1-ss3.htm - broken link)
Only on C-D would someone ask if a constitutional amendment is constitutional.
I am European, so I am not familiar with your constitution. I think that is legitimate question, even more if you watch the video.
Only on C-D people use cynism instead of actually give an answer to the question. Why is it so hard to answer a question without insulting the other?
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.
It was also an epoch in this nation's history before resident beltway retards revised history.
