Posted: 1/15/2017 7:40:58 AM EDT
|
Just read on facebook by a Conservative that this allows the current Government to redistribute wealth however they feel. True? False?
I'm not too savvy with constitution law so this is a nice learning experience. |
|
Totally false. It remove a limitation on the power to tax from the original constitution. In the original constitution, Congress was, so long as the bill for the purpose originated in the House of Representatives, given the power to levy excise taxes, duties, imposts, tariffs, and apportioned direct taxes. A direct tax is basically a set amount billed directly to a person. Such direct taxes had to be apportioned to the States according to population like Representatives, so a State could only have its citizens be taxed to a certain amount. The exact form of the direct tax could vary (one bill from around 1860 levied it as a property tax). The constitution also contains a limitation that such taxation had to be for the general welfare and common defence, meaning that it could not be done for the benefit of only one group (like welfare, including programmes such as Social Security), State, class, person, region, etc. Taxes could only be levied for things that were for the good fo the whole, for the commonweal.
The 16th Amendment allowed for taxes to be laid on incomes of persons without any respect for apportionment. While it's been a while since I'd read up on the subject, IIRC "income" back then was more narrowly defined than today, excluding money compensating someone for a good or service. But I could be remembering incorrectly. Without the 16th Amendment, the government could not tax as much as it does without private citizens feeling a lot of pain. You'd basically get an annual bill for a boatload of money. It was a key change that allowed for massive expansion of our government. But what it does not do is grant Congress the power to redistribute wealth. No such power can be found anywhere in the Constitution, and it is not a power both necessary and proper to the execution of any of Congress's powers. Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, WIC, and various other redistribution programmes are grossly and blatantly unconstitutional, and entailing theft by proxy on behalf of their beneficiaries, represent extreme injustice. Recipients are essentially using the government to steal from other people. Frederic Bastiat described it as "legalized plunder". But to be frank, most of what the Federal government does today is unconstitutional. I don't think there is any stopping it. Heck, look at how people who are supposed to be conservatives for limited government here on this board react when you tell them what they are actually doing by drawing SS, or propose ending it. I remember TEA Party rallies with people holding "Hands off my Medicare" signs. It's become so deeply ingrained in American life, with so many people heavily invested in it and wanting theirs at the expense of others, that I'm not sure it can be ended short of outright collapse, which probably will happen eventually. And it is the 16th Amendment that made a lot of this possible. |
Here is my tax "bill" for calendar year 2015 for just the Feds:
It certainly feels like my "wealth" is getting redistributed. I haven't tried to figure out what the total amount in sales tax I paid in 2015, either. If I am at the grocery store, I definitely pay attention to the people ahead of me in the checkout line and look at what they used to pay for their groceries. The 16A is something needs to be repealed, IMO. |
|
Of course. That is the design. However the purpose is to redistribute the wealth up, to the elite, not down to the poor. It just so happens the poor "benefit" because otherwise there would be revolt without .gov subsidized living after stealing all the wealth.
The real theft is interest-bearing debt-based currency that is devalued. Devaluing the medium of exchange always transfers wealth from producers to leechers. This is called inflation and is simply theft. Pair the first paragraph with the second and we can see that eventually we will all fall into the FSA bracket, through no fault of our own. It is designed to impoverish the many for the benefit of a few. The 16th amendment and central bank cannot live without each other. The amendment's purpose is to fuel the racket of the central bank. It is all theft. We need to smash and burn the central bank before we wake up one day with nothing. Read the book in my sig line. Be prepared for disbelief. It is free online. |
|
The 16A is something needs to be repealed, IMO. While I agree with you, it won't ever happen, because that is where politicians derive their power. If they allowed full deduction for investment, the income tax would magically become a consumption tax. Which would be an improvement, but it would result in politicians losing power, so it won't happen. The paperwork would still be a headache as well. |
|
Quoted:
While I agree with you, it won't ever happen, because that is where politicians derive their power. If they allowed full deduction for investment, the income tax would magically become a consumption tax. Which would be an improvement, but it would result in politicians losing power, so it won't happen. The paperwork would still be a headache as well. Which paperwork would that be? In my ideal world, there would be no income tax and no need to file 1040's. A flat sales tax would be collected at the cash register anonymously. One possible side effect of my "ideal world" is that since the burden for taxation gets shifted from just legal US citizen income producers to everybody, being an illegal alien here in the States and getting paid cash under the table then becomes less desirable. Hopefully, illegal aliens will be "incentivized" to self-deport. |
|
Quoted:
Just read on facebook by a Conservative that this allows the current Government to redistribute wealth however they feel. True? False? A heavy progressive income tax is an important part of Marxist doctrine. It is the method used to achieve "From each according to his ability," Redistribution occurs when the government gives "to each according to his need." There are no limits to what the government may take from one person under the power to tax. "An unlimited power to tax involves, necessarily, the power to destroy." Daniel Webster |
|
Quoted:
Here is my tax "bill" for calendar year 2015 for just the Feds: http://i603.photobucket.com/albums/tt112/gryphon1994/20160418_161844_001_zpsqbwtct1o.jpg It certainly feels like my "wealth" is getting redistributed. I haven't tried to figure out what the total amount in sales tax I paid in 2015, either. If I am at the grocery store, I definitely pay attention to the people ahead of me in the checkout line and look at what they used to pay for their groceries. The 16A is something needs to be repealed, IMO. Ouch. And screw them for raping you with no reach around! Something really needs to be done about taxes they are far far too high. |
|
Quoted:
Totally false. It remove a limitation on the power to tax from the original constitution. In the original constitution, Congress was, so long as the bill for the purpose originated in the House of Representatives, given the power to levy excise taxes, duties, imposts, tariffs, and apportioned direct taxes. A direct tax is basically a set amount billed directly to a person. Such direct taxes had to be apportioned to the States according to population like Representatives, so a State could only have its citizens be taxed to a certain amount. The exact form of the direct tax could vary (one bill from around 1860 levied it as a property tax). The constitution also contains a limitation that such taxation had to be for the general welfare and common defence, meaning that it could not be done for the benefit of only one group (like welfare, including programmes such as Social Security), State, class, person, region, etc. Taxes could only be levied for things that were for the good fo the whole, for the commonweal. The 16th Amendment allowed for taxes to be laid on incomes of persons without any respect for apportionment. While it's been a while since I'd read up on the subject, IIRC "income" back then was more narrowly defined than today, excluding money compensating someone for a good or service. But I could be remembering incorrectly. Without the 16th Amendment, the government could not tax as much as it does without private citizens feeling a lot of pain. You'd basically get an annual bill for a boatload of money. It was a key change that allowed for massive expansion of our government. But what it does not do is grant Congress the power to redistribute wealth. No such power can be found anywhere in the Constitution, and it is not a power both necessary and proper to the execution of any of Congress's powers. Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, WIC, and various other redistribution programmes are grossly and blatantly unconstitutional, and entailing theft by proxy on behalf of their beneficiaries, represent extreme injustice. Recipients are essentially using the government to steal from other people. Frederic Bastiat described it as "legalized plunder". But to be frank, most of what the Federal government does today is unconstitutional. I don't think there is any stopping it. Heck, look at how people who are supposed to be conservatives for limited government here on this board react when you tell them what they are actually doing by drawing SS, or propose ending it. I remember TEA Party rallies with people holding "Hands off my Medicare" signs. It's become so deeply ingrained in American life, with so many people heavily invested in it aniid wanting theirs at the expense of others, that I'm not sure it can be ended short of outright collapse, which probably will happen eventually. And it is the 16th Amendment that made a lot of this possible. Outstanding post! |
|
Quoted:
Which paperwork would that be? In my ideal world, there would be no income tax and no need to file 1040's. A flat sales tax would be collected at the cash register anonymously. One possible side effect of my "ideal world" is that since the burden for taxation gets shifted from just legal US citizen income producers to everybody, being an illegal alien here in the States and getting paid cash under the table then becomes less desirable. Hopefully, illegal aliens will be "incentivized" to self-deport. Quoted:
Quoted:
While I agree with you, it won't ever happen, because that is where politicians derive their power. If they allowed full deduction for investment, the income tax would magically become a consumption tax. Which would be an improvement, but it would result in politicians losing power, so it won't happen. The paperwork would still be a headache as well. Which paperwork would that be? In my ideal world, there would be no income tax and no need to file 1040's. A flat sales tax would be collected at the cash register anonymously. One possible side effect of my "ideal world" is that since the burden for taxation gets shifted from just legal US citizen income producers to everybody, being an illegal alien here in the States and getting paid cash under the table then becomes less desirable. Hopefully, illegal aliens will be "incentivized" to self-deport. The paperwork burden would remain just as high as it is now, of course. Not a good thing. I do agree about your ideal world, but gov't seems to enjoy complexity and bureaucracy. There have been income tax systems where the vast majority of payers did not have to file returns. Again, too simple for gov't to adopt.- |
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.