Thread: Taxes?

Originally Posted by JMS

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.

"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.

Originally Posted by hoglahoo

"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

Originally Posted by ScottS

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!

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.

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.

Originally Posted by ScottS

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?

Originally Posted by nun2sharp

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

Originally Posted by ScottS

"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.

Originally Posted by jockeys

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?