0 Votes
Income tax?
| No, go anarchy! | |
| No, social programs are not democratic | |
| No, the government squanders it with bureaucracy | |
| No, use another form of tax | |
| No, infrastructure is the responsibility of states | |
| Income? What income? | |
| Yes, but only on income/profit | |
| Yes, for America's infrastructure and social programs |
Try Again by PowerPointSamurai
I heard someone a few years ago propose a national sales tax rather than an income tax. At the time I really liked the idea. The whole point of it was to cut crass consumerism and our spendthrift lifestyle and encourage people to save an invest more. Needless to say, the guy hasn’t been heard from since. Since then I’ve had people tell me that that idea would kill the economy and somehow make foreign made goods more attractive—but I don’t buy the latter argument. Another argument was that it would make the cost of living go up for the poor, and make it harder for them to survive, and that is a much better counter-argument, but one we could still overcome by not taxing things you need to live, like food, clothes and school supplies.
One of the other aspects I liked about the plan, other than encouraging investments and savings is that the collection process would be much more efficient than the monstrousity the income tax system is, along with the regalia of the IRS, tax preparation companies you have to pay off, audits, and all that crap, all of which are prone to inefficiencies, corruption and abuse.
One tax I utterly despise is the property tax. Basically I think this is a way for others to extort you off your property if they want it by increasing the value of the land adjacent to you until you can no longer pay. Then again, that’s also the whole idea behind imminent domain laws, only they are quicker.
The Federal Income Tax Isn't Even Constitutional by Rhodizzle
I submit for your perusal a video that goes in depth on the tax code and how the only thing defined as taxable income are transactions between US companies and foreign citizens or US citizens and foreign companies.
A National Income tax is unconstitutional anyways as direct taxes have to be apportioned, which is to say divided up between the states based on their population. Some say the text of Amendment 16 grants the Federal Government the right to apportion a direct tax that is not apportioned, but the Supreme Court decided in 1916 during the Stanton v. Baltic Mining, 240 U.S. 103 case that Amendment 16 conferred no new power of taxation.
So there it is for you folks, the federal income tax that we all love to pay is not only not required by the tax code, but unconstitutional.
RE: The Federal Income Tax Isn't Even Constitutional by VnutZ
I thought the Commerce Clause allowed congress to do that: "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;"
RE: The Federal Income Tax Isn't Even Constitutional by Rhodizzle
The line in Section 8 of Article 1 allows congress to lay taxes to provide for the country, but Section 2 states "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". This was modified by Amendment 16, but the Supreme Court ruled that it gave no new power to tax to the government. Basically a direct tax has to be apportioned among the several states.
Reagan commissioned a study during his administration to establish where your income tax dollars go, and the findings were that every single penny went directly to the national debt, not the services that most people think they are paying for. The way it works is that your money goes directly to the national debt, and the Federal Reserve, an incorporated business with civilian owners, lends money to the U.S. Government whenever the Government wants to spend money. this is why we have a national debt. The Federal Reserve says ‘go ahead, we have the money’ or ’we’ll make new money to loan you’ and the government operates on a blank check.
RE: The Federal Income Tax Isn't Even Constitutional by scottb
Argh. This again.
Let’s put this to rest. The tax protester claims that income tax is neither required nor constitutional have been tested in court and found to be completely false.
I haven’t watched your particular video (at least this time, it’s possible I watched it at some time in the past), but typical claims include two particular groups of arguments. First, that the codes are somehow invalid, and second that the IRS refuses to respond on these points.
Neither case is true. See this site for a former tax protester’s collection of arguments and their legal responses. And this is the IRS’s response document to these claims.
It’s a nice thought, but it’s just false. And if you believe in it and act on it, you’ll go to jail.
RE: The Federal Income Tax Isn't Even Constitutional by Rhodizzle
Tom Cryer used the same method as evidence in a tax fraud case and was in fact acquitted on all counts. Your first link doesn’t cover the issue at all, and the second link is addressed in the video. Watch it then come back and ‘put it to rest.’
RE: The Federal Income Tax Isn't Even Constitutional by scottb
Nope. Been there, done that, and the t-shirt was lame.
The burden of proof is on the extraordinary claim. I’ve seen pointers to Cryer before, and I always find it suspicious that there’s never a link to any court information. Just his own wild claims to have won this.
Furthermore, I’ve not heard that Cryer’s case is over – he’s been to federal court, but there are more appeals to be had there, and I doubt the government is going to let it go.
But hey – you’re obviously one of the faithful. Go for it. Enjoy your time in prison.