End the Income Tax

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Boadicea

How can something literally written into the Constitution be unconstitutional? I don't think Katie Kieffer knows what an Amendment is.

By color of law. Note that it was not included in the original Constitution, but was an amendment added several generations later -- under questionable circumstances.

The difference is the spirit of the law vs the letter of the law. If one sees the Constitution as the beginning and end, then I guess there is no difference -- and absolutely no restraint on the critters to what they can pass. But it's not. If laws -- including amendments -- are not in accordance with our Organic Law and the foundation thereof (Natural Law) then it's just color of law.

originally posted by: Martin75
a reply to: Boadicea

Boadicea what an excellent OP! Much time and thought has been put into this. Thank you. I agree with everything you've said!

Yay!!! Thank you!

Help me scream it from the rooftops because I feel like I'm speaking Klingon here!!!

a reply to: Boadicea

By color of law. Note that it was not included in the original Constitution, but was an amendment added several generations later -- under questionable circumstances.

This is true for literally every Amendment in the Constitution... Hell that is what the word "amendment" means. It was added on top of the original. Plus, this argument doesn't change the fact that regardless of how questionable you think the circumstances were around its adoption, it is part of the Constitution now.

The difference is the spirit of the law vs the letter of the law. If one sees the Constitution as the beginning and end, then I guess there is no difference -- and absolutely no restraint on the critters to what they can pass. But it's not. If laws -- including amendments -- are not in accordance with our Organic Law and the foundation thereof (Natural Law) then it's just color of law.

This argument means nothing to me when the 16th Amendment exists in spite of what you are saying. Like I told you earlier in this thread. You want it gone, then you need to pass another Amendment rescinding it.

originally posted by: intrptr

Did I read here somewhere if stock sales were charged one penny per sale on Wall Street the national debt would vanish?

I remember reading something to that effect too, so I'm going to say "yes."

Thats how greedy them SOBs are up there, thats how little they care for your tax debt burden, not even one penny...

The problem I is that it's not just the greedy banksters now... with 401Ks and IRAs, we are all now speculators as opposed to savers. That surcharge would hit all of us -- and it would hit the little guy just trying to prepare for retirement harder than the banksters. They stacked the deck well.

There never was supposed to be a permanent, progressive income tax. But banks are in charge now , and they want to turn everything they touch to gold.

Exactly. My dad used to say that we had the best legislature money could buy. It's more true than ever.

a reply to: intrptr

The bank and corporate 'bailouts' were the biggest gubment welfare payout in history. Interest free cash grant from the taxpayers...

Hey future generations hows that indentured servitude working? Hows it feel to be forever in debt to the King? Whats the difference?

That pretty much sums it up. I'm glad you said it -- and just thought it deserved to be said again... and again... and again.

Just to clarify to those that might not know the full extent of income tax:

This would be eliminating your Federal, FICA, State & local that appear on your paycheck every week (or whenever you get paid).

To any given person that is approximately 20%-40% of what you earn. So yes, eliminating the income tax would be #ing awesome, lol.

originally posted by: peskyhumans
I would rather end the sales tax and adopt state income tax.

It would make life easier for the poor and homeless.

A fair and appropriate corporate tax would do the same.

I say this in large part because taxation equals loss of freedom. In order to tax income, government needs to control that income. You and I should be able to exercise our freedom of association and make contracts for labor with our fellow men and women without either of us having to register with the government first so they can take "their" cut. If people didn't have to jump through hoops to make a living, I expect more people would be working and providing for themselves in the way that best fits their life.

For example, I used to do crafts fairs when my kids were young. I'd spend my summer and fall sewing, crocheting, cross-stitching, whatever, and sell those items at holiday crafts fairs. I didn't make much. Maybe several hundred to a couple thousand dollars. I checked it out last year, thinking about doing the same, and the hoops I would have had to jump through were crazy -- permits, tax ID registration, etc. It would have cost me a few hundred dollars and that's before I even made one penny in profit for them to tax as well! I refused to do it.... for others, it may not even be possible. Someone trying to make some money doesn't have the money to pay lots of fees first.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Because working a job and getting paid for it, is not income.
It's an even trade.
You trade your time, skills and talent for a fair wage.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Boadicea

Irrelevant.

Cop out.

The 16th Amendment has been in effect for over 100 years. Saying it is unconstitutional is a silly argument.

No more or less silly than any other law that violates our Organic Law. Gay marriage was illegal under color of law for even longer than we've had the 16th Amendment. I didn't accept those laws either for the same reasons.

If you think the 16th needs to go, then we need to make another Amendment rescinding it.

We sure do!!!

Just like with Prohibition. If you are banking on SCOTUS declaring that Amendment unconstitutional, fat chance. Never happening. It is a part of the Constitution now. That's what Amendments are.

And yet, just like Prohibition -- which was "a part of Constitution," that amendment can and should be undone as well. Someone made the rule someone can change the rule.

originally posted by: dfnj2015
"Roosevelt never got his 100% rate. However, the Revenue Act of 1942 raised top rates to 88% on incomes over $200,000. By 1944, the bottom rate had more than doubled to 23%, and the top rate reached an all-time high of 94%."

www.cbsnews.com...

Hardly anyone paid those rates... Here is a good article debunking the liberal meme of the day.

When Tax Rates Were 90%...

originally posted by: Boadicea
No more or less silly than any other law that violates our Organic Law. Gay marriage was illegal under color of law for even longer than we've had the 16th Amendment. I didn't accept those laws either for the same reasons.

Organic Law

An organic law is a law, or system of laws, that form the foundation of a government, corporation or any other organization's body of rules. A constitution is a particular form of organic law for a sovereign state.

So you either don't know what "organic law" means or you are misusing the term, because the 16th Amendment (for the third time now) is part of the Constitution. This in turn makes it PART of the country's organic law.

We sure do!!!

Start drafting some legislation and get a hold of your Congressmen then. Wait. You'll need an Amendment, so you need to contact State governors too.

And yet, just like Prohibition -- which was "a part of Constitution," that amendment can and should be undone as well. Someone made the rule someone can change the rule.

Yes. It was undone correctly. It wasn't done by falsely labeling the Amendment unconstitutional based on not knowing what "organic law" means like you are trying to do in this thread though.

originally posted by: o0oTOPCATo0o
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Because working a job and getting paid for it, is not income.
It's an even trade.
You trade your time, skills and talent for a fair wage.

Ok... And? Planning on finishing that thought?

a reply to: Krazysh0t

This argument means nothing to me when the 16th Amendment exists in spite of what you are saying.

It means enough to you to argue about it. And I really don't understand why or the greater point you're trying to make. But I do know that we made the rules and we can change the rules.

Like I told you earlier in this thread. You want it gone, then you need to pass another Amendment rescinding it.

And as I responded earlier, yes, we sure do!!!

originally posted by: Boadicea
It means enough to you to argue about it. And I really don't understand why or the greater point you're trying to make. But I do know that we made the rules and we can change the rules.

I'm just having a conversation here. I, personally, hate taxes, but I'm not going to lie and say they are unconstitutional.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

So you either don't know what "organic law" means or you are misusing the term, because the 16th Amendment (for the third time now) is part of the Constitution. This in turn makes it PART of the country's organic law.

Please.

The organic laws of the United States of America can be found in Volume One of the United States Code which contains the general and permanent laws of the United States. U.S. Code (2007)[1] defines the organic laws of the United States of America to include the Declaration of Independence of July 4, 1776, the Articles of Confederation of November 15, 1777, the Northwest Ordinance of July 13, 1787, and the Constitution of September 17, 1787.

Source
Our organic law -- not "an" organic law -- starting with the very first founding document, the Declaration of Independence, specifically cites and establishes Natural Law as the foundation for governance. The Constitution is not the whole organic law, but only a practical result of it -- the framework for execution and implementation and protection of our rights under Natural Law.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I, personally, hate taxes...

Good to hear.

but I'm not going to lie and say they are unconstitutional.

Except it's not a lie. At most, it's a difference of opinion or perspective. If you want to make a case for why/how personal income taxes are compatible with Natural Law, I'm happy to read -- and possibly learn.

But I will not accept that because someone said so -- or even that 535 critters unanimously said so -- makes it okay.

a reply to: Boadicea

That wasn't what I meant... My point was that the 16th Amendment, being a part of the Constitution is part of our organic law. At no time did I try to suggest that the Constitution was our end all be all organic law. Heck, if you go back and reread my post you'll see that I emphasize that it is only a part of the organic law. So you are putting words in my mouth here to attack an argument I didn't make. That's called a strawman.

originally posted by: Boadicea
Except it's not a lie. At most, it's a difference of opinion or perspective. If you want to make a case for why/how personal income taxes are compatible with Natural Law, I'm happy to read -- and possibly learn.

But I will not accept that because someone said so -- or even that 535 critters unanimously said so -- makes it okay.

As I told you already Amendments, even if you don't like them, are part of the Constitution. Saying an Amendment is unconstitutional is like declaring your arm to be a non-human arm. Nothing is wrong with trying to change or remove the Amendment (the Constitution IS a living document after all), but using the word "unconstitutional" to describe one just shows an ignorance about US civics.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: o0oTOPCATo0o
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Because working a job and getting paid for it, is not income.
It's an even trade.
You trade your time, skills and talent for a fair wage.

Ok... And? Planning on finishing that thought?

Sure..
It's the way that they tax that is unconstitutional, not the tax itself.
I'm basically saying that your wages from your job should not be considered "Income"

a reply to: Krazysh0t

My point was that the 16th Amendment, being a part of the Constitution is part of our organic law.

And my point was that quoting the general definition of an organic law does not address our specific organic law.

So you are putting words in my mouth here to attack an argument I didn't make. That's called a strawman.

Nope. Didn't do that all. In fact, I did exactly the opposite, focusing on our organic law, not an organic law. I'm not the one creating the strawman, replacing our well-established and defined organic law with a vague and general definition of organic law. I'm not speaking to any other nation except this one.

Now, you know how this goes, KS, if you continue to insult me -- yes, insult me -- I will stop playing with you.