Page 11 of 12 FirstFirst ... 789101112 LastLast
Results 101 to 110 of 117

Thread: Taxes?

  1. #101
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    377
    Thanked: 21

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JMS View Post
    Have you examined the evidence?
    The evidence that says that some guy said he did the research and it didn't pass? I didn't see anything more than that offered.

  2. #102
    Never a dull moment hoglahoo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Tulsa, OK
    Posts
    8,922
    Thanked: 1501
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    "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 or enumeration." - this isn't what Oklahoma voted to ratify...

    Apparently the US Court of Appeals sees it differently

    Benson and Beckman did not discover anything; they rediscovered something that Secretary Knox considered in 1913. Thirty-eight states ratified the sixteenth amendment, and thirty-seven sent formal instruments of ratification to the Secretary of State. (Minnesota notified the Secretary orally, and additional states ratified later; we consider only those Secretary Knox considered.) Only four instruments repeat the language of the sixteenth amendment exactly as Congress approved it. The others contain errors of diction, capitalization, punctuation, and spelling. The text Congress transmitted to the states was: "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 or enumeration." Many of the instruments neglected to capitalize "States," and some capitalized other words instead. The instrument from Illinois had "remuneration" in place of "enumeration"; the instrument from Missouri substituted "levy" for "lay"; the instrument from Washington had "income" not "incomes"; others made similar blunders.
    Find me on SRP's official chat in ##srp on Freenode. Link is at top of SRP's homepage

  3. #103
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    377
    Thanked: 21

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hoglahoo View Post
    "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 or enumeration." - this isn't what Oklahoma voted to ratify...

    Apparently the US Court of Appeals sees it differently
    Where is your quote from?? Any whack job can post anything they want on the web. A bit of citation info goes a long way here.

    Try http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill...amendment.html

    and http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/script...s/498/192.html footnote 7
    Last edited by ScottS; 07-10-2008 at 08:52 PM.

  4. #104
    JMS
    JMS is offline
    Usagi Yojimbo JMS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Ramona California
    Posts
    6,858
    Thanked: 792

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ScottS View Post
    Where is your quote from?? Any whack job can post anything they want on the web. A bit of citation info goes a long way here.
    I think he gave one earlier that you supposedly examined!

  5. #105
    what Dad calls me nun2sharp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Kansas city area USA
    Posts
    9,172
    Thanked: 1677

    Default

    I believe the best tax, if it were to be income based would be something like a flat tax, such as the biblical tithe(10%), it wouldnt matter who made what, 10% would be the rule no exceptions, no exemptions. There should also be a law of equal importance stating that the government could not spend more than it takes in with this tax or bonds sold. Personally I would also like to see the gold standard return, so that the dollar I earn today will still have the same worth/value tommorrow.
    Last edited by nun2sharp; 07-10-2008 at 09:09 PM.
    It is easier to fool people than to convince them they have been fooled. Twain

  6. #106
    Cheapskate Honer Wildtim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    A2 Michigan
    Posts
    2,371
    Thanked: 241

    Default

    About the so called Amendment.

    I've said it before but.....

    Isn't it curious that this is the only amendment that gives power to the government rather than limits it?

    Every other amendment defines vague area of the constitution in order to better define the limits of government. This is the sole example of a place where the original constitution was overwritten to expand the effect of the government upon its citizens.

    Scott,

    By your comparison of a rich person paying more to sit in first class a poor person should pay more in taxes than a rich one.
    The first class seat is a greater benefit than the coach seat so the buyer pays for the greater service. Thereby the poor should pay the greatest amount in tax since they are the ones who want and receive the greatest service from the government.

  7. #107
    Never a dull moment hoglahoo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Tulsa, OK
    Posts
    8,922
    Thanked: 1501
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ScottS View Post
    Where is your quote from?? Any whack job can post anything they want on the web. A bit of citation info goes a long way here.

    Try http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill...amendment.html

    and FindLaw | Cases and Codes footnote 7
    I got it from a government website, I am looking for it again - it supports your argument... did you read it?
    Find me on SRP's official chat in ##srp on Freenode. Link is at top of SRP's homepage

  8. #108
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Posts
    448
    Thanked: 50

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nun2sharp View Post
    I believe the best tax, if it were to be income based would be something like a flat tax, such as the biblical tithe(10%), it wouldnt matter who made what, 10% would be the rule no exceptions, no exemptions. There should also be a law of equal importance stating that the government could not spend more than it takes in with this tax or bonds sold. Personally I would also like to see the gold standard return, so that the dollar I earn today will still have the same worth/value tommorrow.
    There's a lot to recommend a flat tax, but getting there would be tough because most of us have ordered our lives (and finances) on the old system.

    Consider what would happen if the real estate deduction disappeared. Most of us (in the middle class) live in our largest investment, and if the deduction went away, values might -- and probably would -- plummet. That's to say, they'd drop even more than they are right now. On top of the bursting of the real estate bubble, this thing could get truly ugly.

    Instead of realizing a profit on a very significant investment for most of us, we'd very likely be in a position of owing more on the mortgage than the property could sell for.

    What's the answer? I wish I knew.

    j

  9. #109
    Shaves like a pirate jockeys's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    DFW, TX
    Posts
    2,423
    Thanked: 590

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ScottS View Post
    "Privilege" would mean those who are living the best in this society. You pay the most to fly first class, and nobody forces you to fly first class.
    you can choose whether to spend your money on first class, and get better service, or go fly coach with worse service but save your money.

    the successful are not given the choice whether to pay more taxes or not. and they sure as hell don't get better service.

  10. #110
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    377
    Thanked: 21

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jockeys View Post
    the successful are not given the choice whether to pay more taxes or not. and they sure as hell don't get better service.
    They're given the choice of where they want to locate, just like any business. If they don't feel the environment they have is worth the taxes they pay, they're free to find something better. Isn't this consistent with the libertarian "supply-and demand should rule all" outlook?

Page 11 of 12 FirstFirst ... 789101112 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •