Did the state make you great?

[Red1966]

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

Quite often it is the case that immigrants know our Constitution better than citizens born here. We take our blessings for granted.

 

[UncleBuck]

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

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]

You would let someone else tell you what is in a document that takes no longer than 15 minutes to read for yourself?

15 minutes to read, but years to understand.

 

[Red1966]

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.

Some do!..............................lol...............

 

[UncleBuck]

15 minutes to read, but years to understand.

based on your failterpretaion above, i'd say you have years and years and years to go.

 

[Red1966]

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.

Why not? (10 characters)

 

[UncleBuck]

Why not? (10 characters)

with your nobel prize winning logic, you should be able to understand the difference between food and lawnmowers. but maybe not. you are pretty dumb.

 

[Red1966]

Keep typing Bucky. I'm listening. I really am.....lol..........

 

[UncleBuck]

Keep typing Bucky. I'm listening. I really am.....lol..........

this guy has sex with penguins^^^

 

[cannabineer]

But we have a progressive tax rate, which means it's NOT uniform.

Does "uniform" imply "flat"? Not to me ... it means "applied by one standard". That does not mean "rate". cn

 

[beenthere]

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.

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]

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.)

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]

Disregarding the question as to whether or not the 16th was ratified properly... what about, "direct taxes shall be apportioned"?

[video=youtube_share;g04aCp3ej-I]http://youtu.be/g04aCp3ej-I[/video]

 

[Mr Neutron]

Define income.

Income is NOT just any money you get, it actually is defined by the IRS and wages is not in there.

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]

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]

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".

When did they say that labor is property?

 

[Mr Neutron]

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.

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.

 

[Mr Neutron]

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

... but not wages.

 

[bedspirit]

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".

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,

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?

dau.......