141

Payroll taxes are paid in as part of the compensation of a worker selling one’s labor to the employer.

It is all derived from labor and is part of one’s income or compensation… which apparently taxing that has been done wrong for over a hundred years… or so I hear

142

How?

Who gives a crap about that other than you? How will it raise enough revenue to operate the Government? That is the real question… one that has yet to be answered.

143

Not quite. Not considered income.

144

Those who support and defend our written Constitution, and the rule of law, certainly “give a crap”. You apparently are not in that camp.

You ask: “How will it raise enough revenue to operate the Government?” What is the “it” in your question?

And, you still have not answered my question: Are you really suggesting a federal tax on a working person’s earned wage is not a direct tax as our founders understood the phrase?

145

The Constitution clearly allows for an Income tax.

You do everything that you can to avoid answering questions that you just cannot answer… How will your proposal actually fund the government?

No one but you cares about the arguments about how the Founders wanted to fund the government or how literally everyone doesn’t understand the clear and plain text of the 16th Amendment… no one cares.

How will what you want work in the real world?

Answer that and we can get somewhere.

I know you won’t though.

There will be a copy/paste instead.

146

That is a story in and of itself.

The government kevied an income tax upon the people. They were quickly surd and the income tax was ruled unconstitutional. So of course they he elected officials of the day amended the constitution. Birth of the 16th amendment.

147

Yes… it is in the Constitution. They changed the law to reflect the needs of funding the Federal Government.

148

No. They changed the law to get their grubby hands on the people’s money.

Just like FDR and social security. Nothing but a government money grab.

When social security was enacted the retirement age was set at 65 while the average life expectancy at the time was only 62.

1 Like
149

It was the 1880’s and the Progressive age was in full swing where labor was pushing back against the Industrialist Capital class.

A consumption tax was seen as hurting the poor and benefiting the wealthy because… well… it does.

That is why taxing income on a progressive scale was seen as more appropriate.

That was struck down by the court so they changed the Constitution.

150

And exactly how is this not a money grab?

151

It was a shift of how the government was being funded from the poorest people paying the bulk of it through consumption taxes to the wealthy who were living in a gilded age.

152

Wow.

Coming up with a narrative for even a government money grab.

You are one dedicated leftist.

153

It was the politics of the day.

154

Yes. It was so popular amongst the people that they had to amend the constitution to get their hands on the people’s money.

:roll_eyes:

155

A lot has been done in this country to keep the poor from rising up and murdering all of the rich people.

We have a pretty fascinating history when it comes to that.

156

The Constitution allows for a tax on incomes. It does not allow for any tax which takes the form of a direct tax, to not be apportioned, which I documented HERE

And, you still have not answered the question: Are you really suggesting a federal tax on a working person’s earned wage is not a direct tax as our founders understood the phrase?

157

You seem to be under the impression that they weren’t taking the people’s money already.

Prior to income tax, we had consumption taxes - tariffs, like John wants to return to - but on both imports and domestic prodcuts.

Consumption taxes are regressive. In keeping with the politics of the day, it was deemed more appropriate to change the method of taxation to one that wasn’t regressive.

Andso here we are.

But the fed. govt. was already collecting money from the people.

158

Dude. Once again you are misinformed.

A company knows what it’s tax bill WILL BE. And that allows them to build that cost into current prices.

159

Taxing consumption as intended by our Founders does not hurt the poor and is a far less oppressive system of taxation than what we now have which steals the bread which working people have earned by the sweat of their labor.

Taxing consumption is a voluntary system of taxation and allows everyone to contribute to the support of government when they spend their money . . . rich and poor alike.

Hamilton stresses in Federalist No 21 regarding taxes on articles of consumption:

“There is no method of steering clear of this inconvenience, but by authorizing the national government to raise its own revenues in its own way. Imposts, excises, and, in general, all duties upon articles of consumption, may be compared to a fluid, which will, in time, find its level with the means of paying them. The amount to be contributed by each citizen will in a degree be at his own option, and can be regulated by an attention to his resources. The rich may be extravagant, the poor can be frugal; and private oppression may always be avoided by a judicious selection of objects proper for such impositions. If inequalities should arise in some States from duties on particular objects, these will, in all probability, be counter balanced by proportional inequalities in other States, from the duties on other objects. In the course of time and things, an equilibrium, as far as it is attainable in so complicated a subject, will be established everywhere. Or, if inequalities should still exist, they would neither be so great in their degree, so uniform in their operation, nor so odious in their appearance, as those which would necessarily spring from quotas, upon any scale that can possibly be devised.

It is a signal advantage of taxes on articles of consumption that they contain in their own nature a security against excess. They prescribe their own limit; which cannot be exceeded without defeating the end proposed, that is, an extension of the revenue. When applied to this object, the saying is as just as it is witty, that, "in political arithmetic, two and two do not always make four .‘’ If duties are too high, they lessen the consumption; the collection is eluded; and the product to the treasury is not so great as when they are confined within proper and moderate bounds. This forms a complete barrier against any material oppression of the citizens by taxes of this class, and is itself a natural limitation of the power of imposing them.”

Seems to me the wealthy pinkos in Hollywood detest taxing consumption as our founders intended because they would not be able to escape paying their fair share of taxes when spending their wealth.

Stop making ■■■■ up, Jez.

160

I’m with you. It’s in the Constitution.

I’m a firm advocate of the Amendment process. All the bickering about dead historical men is meaningless. They left us the process for changing the Constitution when needed. If the global conditions we live in require a change to the way we should be running the government, then amend the Constitution.

The 16th is such a case. It’s official. It’s done. If it’s wrong for today, and if we should return to original Constitutional provisions, then amend the Constitution to reverse the 16th. We’ve reversed Amendments before. (Prohibition.) But as it stands today, the Constitution is what it is, Amendments and all.

2 Likes