EnviroLink Forum

Community • Ecology • Connection
It is currently Thu Oct 23, 2014 7:43 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 87 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Mar 17, 2007 12:01 pm 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 19, 2005 5:02 pm
Posts: 5941
You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift. You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong. You help the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer. You cannot further the brotherhood of man be encouraging class hatred. You cannot help the poor by discouraging the rich. You cannot establish sound security on borrowed money. You cannot keep out of trouble by spending more than you earn. You cannot build character and courage by taking away man's initiative and indepenence. You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves.

- Abraham Lincoln.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Mar 17, 2007 8:01 pm 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:02 pm
Posts: 2314
Quote:
Grace I could dumb it down a little and throw in a bunch of emotional knee jerk BS and then maybe you'd get it.....denni you don't wanna understand it because you choose not to..Plain and simple, all of the social programs and "help" you are talking about are NOT called for in the constitution.....Having the government STEAL your money and give it to someone else is not a sign of compassion on your part it is redistribution of wealth by our socialist leaning government.....You said I had no compassion because I do not believe in the government taking care of people. I asked about your tax preperation to see if you send in extra or work to get as much back as possible. If you are tryiong to minimize your tax liability then you are OBVIOUSLY not compassionate. Otherwise you'd just send in extra to give to the people who won't take care of themselves. I am sorry about your cousin but why is that MY responsibility to take care of him? Is it the RIGHT Thing to do? Sure but where is this called for CONSTITUTIONALLY? And why should I be forced to pay to take care of someone else if I do not want to?
L.C obviously you are right about the hammer ( probably as the govt is F##KED UP)...but even with that why on earth would ANYONE want to entrust even MORE money to the bunch of thiefs and crooks?


so Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Sweden, Switzerland are all Socialist Governments because they have Universal Health Care for all their citizens and your belief is a single mother working 3 jobs to support her children who pays taxes on whatever paltry earnings she is making doesn't deserve the fundamental right to health care benefits for herself and her children.

Whether you like it or not when this women goes to the ER to get help for her children you and I pay for her services through higher insurance premiums that is passed on to our employer's plans and then get trickled down to employees with increased employee-paid deductibles...so not only are we paying our fair assessment of payroll taxes we are having more deducted from our disposable earnings to cover the costs for those with no health insurance...what happens when the day comes health care costs get so high that employers can no longer afford to offer them as part of a compensation package and you and I find ourselves without it.

People with mental-illness and/or other socio-pathogical disabilities may become violent, engage in criminal behavior and become part of the prison system…who do you think pays that...look at the rise in prison health care costs in addition to their upkeep and maintenance within the prison system…I would think these monies could be put to better use funding preventive programs and services with a higher degree of societal value and benefit.

http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=234920

here's an informative link on the #1 cause of homelessness in this country(read the .pdf survey):

http://libraries.uta.edu/dillard/subfil ... ssness.htm

where did I advocate for anyone who is homeless to be subsidized with free rent or for others to get free handouts if they are non-disabled and able-bodied to work.

how do you know if many of these homeless were not productive tax payers at some point in their lives and have now fallen on hard times for any number of reasons...my cousin was a top salesman for the Teleprompter Cable company in NYC and paid his fair share of taxes
while struggling with his illness.

All Americans deserve housing that is affordable within their standard of living especially when those citizens are displaced and evicted for higher scale housing development projects.Americans with special needs have an alienable right to programs and services to help people get back on their feet and become productive and self-sufficient.

from I what I was able to gather from your incoherent, unintelligible rant is the gov't is stealing from me to "give" to someone else and redistributing my "wealth" to those less deserving or lazy and you should not be forced to take care of someone else if you don't want to.

given the mentality of the above sentiment I know this is going to assault your reasoning abilities.

http://www.ustreas.gov/education/faq/ta ... ry.html#q1

Why do we need to pay taxes? How did our tax system evolve?

Oliver Wendell Holmes, former Justice of the United States Supreme Court, once said, "Taxes are what we pay for a civilized society." Although people work hard to meet their needs and the needs of their families, there are some things they cannot purchase themselves. For example, the taxes paid to state and local jurisdictions help pay for police and fire protection. These taxes also pay for the operation of the local governments, and for local recreation areas such as parks and other public facilities.

On the national level, Federal income taxes help pay for defense for the country. They also pay for capital facilities such as highways and other transportation services, and for help for those who are poor or ill. These are all services that individual citizens cannot purchase the way they can buy food and clothing and the other necessities of life. When people live together in a society, all of its citizens must bear the cost of providing such services. Taxes are the means by which the society raises the money to cover these public costs


I pay my fair share of taxes as required under the current system of taxation no more no less and I expect those monies to be used within the framework and mandate for which they are being collected.

LC:
I’ve been in contact with the Community Services Boards in my city and
The city where my cousin is semi-homeless and like anything else it’s a huge bureaucracy with a five+ year waiting list as funding cuts for these programs result in less resources and trained personnel.

Ann:
Does your tenant have family you could speak with regarding his illness…under Canada's Universal Health Care are there govt sponsored programs he could get the help he needs?

_________________
join the Ron Paul Revolution!
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/

if I could wake up tomorrow morning and push a button and all the AR's would be gone, I would lay awake tonight in anticipation of pushing the button.~~OHIOSTEVE


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Mar 17, 2007 8:25 pm 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 2:09 pm
Posts: 1649
Location: Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada
OHIOSTEVE wrote:
From The Life of Colonel David Crockett,
by Edward S. Ellis (Philadelphia: Porter & Coates, 1884)

Crockett was then the lion of Washington. I was a great admirer of his character...
I cannot vote for this bill, but I will give one week's pay to the object, and if every member of Congress will do the same, it will amount to more than the bill asks."

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig4/ellis1.html
Wow, this guy thinks like me. Governments have to think of themselves as builders of society instead of brokers in wealth distribution. I have experienced a few different systems designed to prevent the financial disaster of people and the best one I see is where you are forced to get automobile insurance (with legislated minimums) but can chose your insurance provider. I think such a system can be extended to all welfare related issues so income insurance and home insurance and "life" insurance and health care insurance, etc can be made universal. If handicapped people are the problem, legislate minimum employment ratios of handicapped. Business men will figure out how to get their money's worth and nobody is begging for hand-outs. The insurance policies can have charges covered for certain people but legislated to be paid for by the insurance companies... who will be then willing to help them become employed. see, it can all be done without taxes!

OHIOSTEVE wrote:
You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift. You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong. You cannot help the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer. You cannot further the brotherhood of man be encouraging class hatred. You cannot help the poor by discouraging the rich. You cannot establish sound security on borrowed money. You cannot keep out of trouble by spending more than you earn. You cannot build character and courage by taking away man's initiative and Independence. You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves.

- Abraham Lincoln.
Again, I love his take on things. Too bad we don't have these sort of people in power today. (going through Abe's quote) Thrift needs to be taught. Strengths need to always be encouraged. Never prosecute the employer or you will have less employment which hurts everyone. There is a lot of hatred towards welfare recipients and anyone else getting handouts... handouts encourage this hatred. The rich need to feel unrestricted with generosity, and encouraged to be generous. taxes are borrowed money and borrowed money in lieu of taxes is even more insecure... many governments of the world will take generations to get out of debt...ouch. ditto on the next statement... credit is stupid for everyone except start-up businesses and even there it is a poor substitute for start-up capital. Unrestricted initiative is very important... even if it results in more failures. Independence is a key word in all the thinking back then... where did that thinking go to? The old "teach a man to fish instead of giving the man a fish"... if you want to help while not making them a slave to the welfare check is to get them employed


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Mar 17, 2007 8:25 pm 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 12:59 am
Posts: 2289
Location: Central Colorado
Origami wrote:
Hmm.. I find it amusing that the flag all of a sudden has become responsible for homeless people, health care, etc. The flag is a symbol of our nation.. many people cherish it because they cherish this country. The flag is not responsible for the government or the people here.. it's a symbol. Far as I know the flag stood (and still does stand) for freedom and a strong country. The issues she talks about aren't with the flag.. but rather the government and it's laws/policies/etc.. why not address it as such? The flag has nothing to do with the decisions the people we elect make... nobody ever asks it for it's opinion.


You sure make sense Origami. Thank you. :)

_________________
"With every decision, think seven generations ahead of the consequences of your actions" Ute rule of life.
“We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children”― Chief Seattle
“Those Who Have the Privilege to Know Have the Duty to Act”…Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Mar 17, 2007 8:32 pm 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:02 pm
Posts: 2314
I like this better.... 8)

A symbol represents qualities or characteristics that are expressions of the ideals of a culture and principles of the people it represents…when I look at the flag I see a stark contrast with reality.

http://www.newhumanist.com/flag.html

"Some people think that if you are free to say what you like, you are living in a democracy. But freedom of speech is not the sum total of democracy, only one of its necessary conditions. A government is not a democracy when it leaves us free to say what we want but leaves others free to do what they want with our country, our resources, our taxes and our lives" - Michael Parenti.

_________________
join the Ron Paul Revolution!
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/

if I could wake up tomorrow morning and push a button and all the AR's would be gone, I would lay awake tonight in anticipation of pushing the button.~~OHIOSTEVE


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Mar 17, 2007 11:48 pm 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 19, 2005 5:02 pm
Posts: 5941
yes denni .....a country that has universal health care ( BTW this USED to be called socialized medicine but the truth in the name was too much so it is now universal health care) is promoting socialism.....You can talk all day long about the tax system but everyone knows it is immoral . The amount of money stolen by the IRS and given away is wrong not to mention illegal and unconstitutional. There is NO constitutiuonal basis for it and you can agree with doing it all you want to but it is still unconstitutional. Personally I don't care if a singler mother has ten kids..I did NOT get her pregnant and I should not be responsible for her care or that of her kids...AGAIN if I WANT to help her then that is fine but to FORCE me to does 2 things..It makes me despise the welfare class and makes her feel bad about herself....And as for her ER visits if the f##kin government and insurance companies were out of the picture she could pay for the care out of her pocket, the same as you and I could......BESIDES if the country was ran CONSTITUTIONALLY There would be no tax money to pay for her troubles.......The government does not help ANONE by handouts...They have created an entire class of people who grow learning how to get by without working.......I just recently returned from a trip down south....I was AMAZED at this particular county I was visiting..EVERYONE ( nearly) was drawing SSI. Entire families drawing simply because they knew how to get it. It was a given that at the age of 18 you go sign up.......Think I am lying go to McCreary county or Wayne co KY and look around for a while.
As far as the link you provided I did not get into it much...sales taxes and property taxes can be justified constitutionally..the income tax is illegal and completely unconstitutional, and goes to pay the interest on the national debt.. And its funny, every year more and more people are finding out the truth about it and not paying......Yes I know some are getting prosecuted BUT a LOT are not and more and more are winning against the IRS as the truth presents itself more and more. The constitution allows for two types of taxes...direct ( cigarettes tobacco gas firearms etc etc) and apportioned ( the govt has a need for X amount of dollars and that cost is divided equally among the states based on population) the income tax is neither, and is illegal.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Mar 18, 2007 12:51 am 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 19, 2005 5:02 pm
Posts: 5941
"The individual may stand upon his constitutional rights as a citizen. He is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way. His power to contract is unlimited. He owes no such duty [to submit his books and papers for an examination] to the State, since he receives nothing therefrom, beyond the protection of his life and property. His rights are such as existed by the law of the land [Common Law] long antecedent to the organization of the State, and can only be taken from him by due process of law, and in accordance with the Constitution. Among his rights are a refusal to incriminate himself, and the immunity of himself and his property from arrest or seizure except under a warrant of the law. He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their rights." Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43 at 47 (1905).


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Mar 18, 2007 1:15 am 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 19, 2005 5:02 pm
Posts: 5941
Billions for the Bankers, Debts for the People
The Real Story of the Money-Control Over America

by Pastor Sheldon Emry, circa 1980*

Posted at Bull Not Bull on May 1, 2005.

Comments and discussion on this article are welcomed and encouraged. Click here.

Editor's note: This piece is an internet classic, outlining the terrible flaws in our current banking system, and how it enriches bankers and powers-that-be at the expense of common people like us. If you have never seen it, you are in for an eye opener! If you have read it before, read it again - it is well worth it. Although originally written in 1980, the article is especially timely today in light of the new bankruptcy law that has been passed by the Senate and will surely be passed by the Congress soon. Read it and think about the world that we live in! Opening yourself to new information is the first step in awakening to the truth about the road we are traveling.

————————————————————-

If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their money, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them (around the banks), will deprive the people of their property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.

-- Thomas Jefferson
http://www.bullnotbull.com/archive/billions.html

A VERY interesting ( long) read.......I also suggest watching the video " AMERICA...FROM FREEDOM TO FASCISM" it is very eye opening......It is not EXACTLY what this thread is concerning but it talks of taxation and its illegal implementation........


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Mar 18, 2007 7:35 am 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 13, 2006 3:45 pm
Posts: 10701
Location: S. Fla
denni50 wrote:
Quote:
Grace I could dumb it down a little and throw in a bunch of emotional knee jerk BS and then maybe you'd get it.....denni you don't wanna understand it because you choose not to..Plain and simple, all of the social programs and "help" you are talking about are NOT called for in the constitution.....Having the government STEAL your money and give it to someone else is not a sign of compassion on your part it is redistribution of wealth by our socialist leaning government.....You said I had no compassion because I do not believe in the government taking care of people. I asked about your tax preperation to see if you send in extra or work to get as much back as possible. If you are tryiong to minimize your tax liability then you are OBVIOUSLY not compassionate. Otherwise you'd just send in extra to give to the people who won't take care of themselves. I am sorry about your cousin but why is that MY responsibility to take care of him? Is it the RIGHT Thing to do? Sure but where is this called for CONSTITUTIONALLY? And why should I be forced to pay to take care of someone else if I do not want to?
L.C obviously you are right about the hammer ( probably as the govt is F##KED UP)...but even with that why on earth would ANYONE want to entrust even MORE money to the bunch of thiefs and crooks?


so Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Sweden, Switzerland are all Socialist Governments because they have Universal Health Care for all their citizens and your belief is a single mother working 3 jobs to support her children who pays taxes on whatever paltry earnings she is making doesn't deserve the fundamental right to health care benefits for herself and her children.

Whether you like it or not when this women goes to the ER to get help for her children you and I pay for her services through higher insurance premiums that is passed on to our employer's plans and then get trickled down to employees with increased employee-paid deductibles...so not only are we paying our fair assessment of payroll taxes we are having more deducted from our disposable earnings to cover the costs for those with no health insurance...what happens when the day comes health care costs get so high that employers can no longer afford to offer them as part of a compensation package and you and I find ourselves without it.

People with mental-illness and/or other socio-pathogical disabilities may become violent, engage in criminal behavior and become part of the prison system…who do you think pays that...look at the rise in prison health care costs in addition to their upkeep and maintenance within the prison system…I would think these monies could be put to better use funding preventive programs and services with a higher degree of societal value and benefit.

http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=234920

here's an informative link on the #1 cause of homelessness in this country(read the .pdf survey):

http://libraries.uta.edu/dillard/subfil ... ssness.htm

where did I advocate for anyone who is homeless to be subsidized with free rent or for others to get free handouts if they are non-disabled and able-bodied to work.

how do you know if many of these homeless were not productive tax payers at some point in their lives and have now fallen on hard times for any number of reasons...my cousin was a top salesman for the Teleprompter Cable company in NYC and paid his fair share of taxes
while struggling with his illness.

All Americans deserve housing that is affordable within their standard of living especially when those citizens are displaced and evicted for higher scale housing development projects.Americans with special needs have an alienable right to programs and services to help people get back on their feet and become productive and self-sufficient.

from I what I was able to gather from your incoherent, unintelligible rant is the gov't is stealing from me to "give" to someone else and redistributing my "wealth" to those less deserving or lazy and you should not be forced to take care of someone else if you don't want to.

given the mentality of the above sentiment I know this is going to assault your reasoning abilities.

http://www.ustreas.gov/education/faq/ta ... ry.html#q1

Why do we need to pay taxes? How did our tax system evolve?

Oliver Wendell Holmes, former Justice of the United States Supreme Court, once said, "Taxes are what we pay for a civilized society." Although people work hard to meet their needs and the needs of their families, there are some things they cannot purchase themselves. For example, the taxes paid to state and local jurisdictions help pay for police and fire protection. These taxes also pay for the operation of the local governments, and for local recreation areas such as parks and other public facilities.

On the national level, Federal income taxes help pay for defense for the country. They also pay for capital facilities such as highways and other transportation services, and for help for those who are poor or ill. These are all services that individual citizens cannot purchase the way they can buy food and clothing and the other necessities of life. When people live together in a society, all of its citizens must bear the cost of providing such services. Taxes are the means by which the society raises the money to cover these public costs


I pay my fair share of taxes as required under the current system of taxation no more no less and I expect those monies to be used within the framework and mandate for which they are being collected.

LC:
I’ve been in contact with the Community Services Boards in my city and
The city where my cousin is semi-homeless and like anything else it’s a huge bureaucracy with a five+ year waiting list as funding cuts for these programs result in less resources and trained personnel.

Ann:
Does your tenant have family you could speak with regarding his illness…under Canada's Universal Health Care are there govt sponsored programs he could get the help he needs?




VERY good post, denni.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Mar 18, 2007 8:02 am 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20562
Location: Southeastern US
OHIOSTEVE wrote:
The constitution allows for two types of taxes...direct ( cigarettes tobacco gas firearms etc etc) and apportioned ( the govt has a need for X amount of dollars and that cost is divided equally among the states based on population) the income tax is neither, and is illegal.


On this subject you should read the Sixteenth Amendment:

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.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Mar 18, 2007 8:14 am 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20562
Location: Southeastern US
OHIOSTEVE wrote:
"The individual may stand upon his constitutional rights as a citizen. He is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way. His power to contract is unlimited. He owes no such duty [to submit his books and papers for an examination] to the State, since he receives nothing therefrom, beyond the protection of his life and property. His rights are such as existed by the law of the land [Common Law] long antecedent to the organization of the State, and can only be taken from him by due process of law, and in accordance with the Constitution. Among his rights are a refusal to incriminate himself, and the immunity of himself and his property from arrest or seizure except under a warrant of the law. He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their rights." Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43 at 47 (1905).


Odd that the ruling was just the opposite of this quote's contention.

http://supreme.justia.com/us/201/43/case.html


U.S. Supreme Court
HALE v. HENKEL, 201 U.S. 43 (1906)
201 U.S. 43

EDWIN F. HALE, Appt.,
v.
WILLIAM HENKEL, United States Marshal.
No. 340.

Argued January 4, 5, 1906.
Decided March 12, 1906.



Page 201 U.S. 43, 44

This was an appeal from a final order of the circuit court, made June 18, 1905, dismissing a writ of habeas corpus, and remanding the petitioner, Hale, to the custody of the marshal.

The proceeding originated in a subpoena duces tecum, issued April 28, 1905, commanding Hale to appear before the grand jury at a time and place named, to 'testify and give evidence

<snip>

The order of the circuit court should be reversed and the case remanded with instructions to discharge the petitioner, leaving to the grand jury the right to initiate new proceedings not subject to the objections to this.

I am authorized to say that the CHIEF JUSTICE concurs in these views.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Mar 18, 2007 8:40 am 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20562
Location: Southeastern US
The whole quote makes it clear the individual may refuse to submit their own private papers/books to the grand jury without a warrant, which does not mean those papers/book cannot be reviewed at all. It merely states there is the requirement for a warrant for an individual and in this particular case a more narrowly defined scope of documents required.

If, whenever an officer or employee of a corporation were summoned before a grand jury as a witness he could refuse to produce the books and documents of such corporation, upon the ground that they would incriminate the corporation itself, it would result in the failure of a large number of cases where the illegal combination was determinable only upon the examination of such papers. Conceding that the witness was an officer of the corporation under investigation, and that he was entitled to assert the rights of corporation with respect to the production of its books and papers, we are of the opinion that there is a clear distinction in this particular between an individual and a corporation, and that the latter has no right to refuse to submit its books and papers for an examination at the suit of the state. The individual may stand upon his constitutional rights as a citizen. He is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way. His power to contract is unlimited. He owes no duty to the state or to his neighbors to divulge his business, or to open his doors to an investigation, so far as it may tend to criminate him. He owes no such duty to the state, since he receives nothing therefrom, beyond the protection of his life and property. His rights are such as existed by the law of the land long antecedent to the organization of the state, and can only be taken from him by due process of law, and in accordance with the Constitution. Among his rights are a refusal to incriminate himself, and the immunity of himself and his property from arrest or seizure except under a warrant of the law. He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their rights.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Mar 18, 2007 9:11 am 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 19, 2005 5:02 pm
Posts: 5941
Wayne Stollings wrote:
OHIOSTEVE wrote:
The constitution allows for two types of taxes...direct ( cigarettes tobacco gas firearms etc etc) and apportioned ( the govt has a need for X amount of dollars and that cost is divided equally among the states based on population) the income tax is neither, and is illegal.


On this subject you should read the Sixteenth Amendment:

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.
The supreme court has already ruled ( I will have to find it again) that the 16th amendment gave congress NO NEW POWERS. If the power was not there prior to the 16th then it is not there now.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Mar 18, 2007 9:16 am 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20562
Location: Southeastern US
OHIOSTEVE wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:
OHIOSTEVE wrote:
The constitution allows for two types of taxes...direct ( cigarettes tobacco gas firearms etc etc) and apportioned ( the govt has a need for X amount of dollars and that cost is divided equally among the states based on population) the income tax is neither, and is illegal.


On this subject you should read the Sixteenth Amendment:

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.
The supreme court has already ruled ( I will have to find it again) that the 16th amendment gave congress NO NEW POWERS. If the power was not there prior to the 16th then it is not there now.


That would mean there was always a right to tax income as it is specified in this amendment.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Mar 18, 2007 9:21 am 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20562
Location: Southeastern US
In the Supreme Court case of Bowers v. Kerbaugh-Empire Co., Mr. Justice Butler stated:

It was not the purpose or the effect of that amendment to bring any new subject within the taxing power. Congress already had the power to tax all incomes. But taxes on incomes from some sources had been held to be "direct taxes" within the meaning of the constitutional requirement as to apportionment. The Amendment relieved from that requirement and obliterated the distinction in that respect between taxes on income that are direct taxes and those that are not, and so put on the same basis all incomes "from whatever source derived". "Income" has been taken to mean the same thing as used in the Corporation Excise Tax of 1909 (36 Stat. 112), in the Sixteenth Amendment, and in the various revenue acts subsequently passed. After full consideration, this court declared that income may be defined as gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined, including profit gained through sale or conversion of capital.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 87 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Exabot [Bot] and 14 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group