{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
10/24/2015 10:39:28 PM
15
Abolish the Federal income tax. And the "Federal" reserve. The income tax is unconstitutional it's forced but is not a flat rate. I'd even be fine with a flat rate income tax, but happier with none. But I digress.
English
-
Edited by Smarkdow: 10/24/2015 10:56:34 PM[quote]The income tax is unconstitutional it's forced but is not a flat rate.[/quote]Considering the income tax is allowed by the Constitution, this is false.
-
No look up the two types of constitutional taxes I'm not saying the income tax itself but how it's instituted. If a tax is forced it HAS to be at a flat rate.
-
Edited by Smarkdow: 10/24/2015 11:06:29 PM[quote]No look up the two types of constitutional taxes I'm not saying the income tax itself but how it's instituted.[/quote][quote]"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, [b]without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.[/b]"[/quote]-Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the U.S. The income tax is constitutional. [quote]If a tax is forced it HAS to be at a flat rate.[/quote]False.
-
[quote] [b]without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.[/b]"[/quote] Means that it is the same no matter where you are in the country. Or your status in the country. If you make income it's supposed to be taxed but at the same rate as everyone else is.
-
Edited by Smarkdow: 10/25/2015 1:03:01 AMErr no. It's saying Congress can tax incomes without regard to any previous constitutional limitation on taxation. Hence why it's a constitutional amendment. There's nothing in the amendment or the Constitution itself that says that the income tax rate must be the same for everyone. Because the Constitution doesn't explicitly prohibit a progressive tax, it is within Congress' power to establish such a tax.
-
Edited by Blood Myst: 10/25/2015 6:31:47 AMJust please look up direct and indirect taxes. Those are the two types of constitutional taxes. The modern federal income tax is neither of those. [spoiler]it's direct but acts like it's an indirect tax. If you're still having trouble. The income tax money goes straight to the "Federal" Reserve to pay off our debt to them. Hence it has an intermediary which makes it unconstitutional [/spoiler]
-
Edited by Smarkdow: 10/25/2015 6:37:10 AMI really don't get what's so hard to understand about this, so I'll restate it again. The Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution (as in, an addition to the Constitution, and is therefore the supreme law of the land) allows Congress to establish a tax based on income, without any regard to any previous limitation on taxation. Furthermore, since the Constitution doesn't explicitly prohibit a progressive income tax, Congress is well within their power to establish such a tax. You can dislike the federal income tax and argue against it on quite a few grounds, but constitutionality is not one of them. It's the result of a constitutional amendment; that's as constitutional as you can get. It really is that simple.
-
Edited by Blood Myst: 10/25/2015 6:40:11 AMYou didn't read the spoiler. Trust me. I know it's in the Constitution. But again, read the spoiler. The Fed gets the money gained from the Income tax, [b][u]meaning[/u][/b] it has an [u][b]intermediary[/b][/u], which means it's a indirect tax making it [b]unconstitutional[/b]
-
[quote]I know it's in the Constitution.[/quote]Then arguing against its constitutionality when you yourself admit it's in the Constitution itself seems silly, no? There's really nothing more that needs to be said. [quote]The Fed gets the money gained from the Income tax [b][u]meaning[/u][/b] it has an [u][b]intermediary[/b][/u] which means it's a indirect tax making it [b]unconstitutional[/b][/quote]That is a very big misinterpretation of what an indirect tax is, how it functions and what is unconstitutional and what isn't. Sales taxes are a form of indirect tax. Excise duties are a form of indirect tax. Both are widely utilized, and are constitutional. It doesn't really matter either way considering, again, the Sixteenth Amendment allows an income tax, and again, [i]without regard to any previous limitation on taxation.[/i] You're arguing from a very misguided position. The income tax is constitutional. That is an indisputable fact.
-
Direct taxes get paid [u][b]directly[/b][/u] to the government. Indirect taxes get paid to the [u][b]intermediary[/b][/u] say a gas station or grocery store. The income tax is classified as a direct tax, [u][b]but[/b][/u] it has an [u][b]intermediary[/b][/u]. Meaning it's acting like an [u][b]indirect[/b][/u] tax. Only indirect taxes are allowed to have intermediaries.
-
Edited by Smarkdow: 10/25/2015 7:38:13 AMYou have a very flawed understanding of the Constitution, [i]to the point where you're denying the constitutionality of a [b]constitutional amendment,[/b] while acknowledging said amendment's presence in the Constitution.[/i] That's some serious doublethink there. I'm not gonna argue the inarguable validity of the income tax with someone willfully ignorant of the facts, who's standing on very, very shaky ground. Simply put, you're wrong. End of story. Fin.
-
I'm sorry but indirect direct taxes are unconstitutional.
-
Edited by Smarkdow: 10/25/2015 8:53:55 AMClearly false considering tariffs and excise duties exist, which are explicitly granted as a power of Congress. And that states utilize sales taxes. Those are all indirect taxes. Indirect taxes are not unconstitutional. And again, it doesn't matter. The income tax is allowed by the Constitution via constitutional amendment, without regard to apportionment or enumeration or any prior limitation of taxation. Which is why the Constitution was amended in the first place. To allow Congress to tax incomes in that manner. Do I really need to repeat this point again and again until it gets through to you? You're arguing from a shaky position, based on your own (mis)interpretation of the Constitution and its amendments, and what constitutes a direct or indirect tax. It's clear you don't know the kind of taxes it allows, what kind of limitations are involved, etc. You haven't even supported your claims, only relying on your personal interpretation. In short, extraordinary claims ("The income tax is unconstitutional!") require extraordinary evidence. So far, you have presented none. What's there, on the other hand, points clearly to the opposite conclusion. Because there is a constitutional amendment explicitly allowing an income tax, the income tax is therefore constitutional. Continue denying reality and facts all you want, but we're done here.
-
[quote]Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan and Trust Co.[/quote] [quote] On April 8, 1895, the Supreme Court declared that the federal income tax was unconstitutiona [/quote] So I ask you Can a law declared unconstitutional in 1895 be constitutional in 1913 and beyond? The original law called for a flat 2% tax on all incomes above $4,000. The tax affected less than 10 percent of the population [quote]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.[/quote] [quote]It reportedly took more than three years for three-quarters of the states to ratify the amendment to the Constitution. However, there are numerous reports that the amendment was never ratified by enough states for it to have passed. Then-Secretary of State Philander Knox declared the amendment ratified on February 15, 1913 even though he might have possessed evidence that some states had changed the proposed language, creating many different versions of the amendment put forth by Congress.[/quote] ...evidence? I do believe it needs a flat rate.
-
Edited by Smarkdow: 10/25/2015 3:32:06 PM[quote]So I ask you Can a law declared unconstitutional in 1895 be constitutional in 1913 and beyond?[/quote]Because the Constitution was amended! They changed the Constitution to make it legal. Do you understand what constitutional amendments are? It can't be unconstitutional because it's now part of the Constitution itself. This isn't a hard concept to grasp.
