Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Repeal the 16th Amendment
worldnetdaily.com ^ | 11/20/02 | Ilana Mercer

Posted on 11/23/2002 11:02:34 AM PST by winner45

This is a WorldNetDaily printer-friendly version of the article which follows.
To view this item online, visit http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=29716

Wednesday, November 20, 2002



Repeal the abominable 16th Amendment!


Posted: November 20, 2002
1:00 a.m. Eastern

By Ilana Mercer


© 2002 WorldNetDaily.com

"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 16th Amendment

What are we to make of the idea Washington is floating of replacing tax on income with a national sales tax? The Cato Institute has described it as "simpler, more efficient, pro-growth and fairer to taxpayers." And I must be missing something because I thought we already paid taxes on products and services. In addition to states where a sales tax already exists, sizeable portions of the prices we pay are taxes. The quandary as to whether an indirect consumption tax is better than taxes on income masks what's probably in the offing.

Once a tax is pushed through it seldom disappears. Last I looked, government at all levels was consuming approximately 47 percent of the national income and growing. A reversal of the trend is almost unheard of among developed nations. To keep the State in style, consumption taxes will have to go through the roof. On the plus side, the consumer can opt out, something he can't do with a tax on income. On the downside, should he "choose" not to purchase, the consumer may starve or be destined to a rather austere life.

In all likelihood, "tax reform" will leave us with the income tax in addition to more consumption taxes. Hopes realistically must be much more modest. Let the idea of a tax reform, for once, engender a discussion about First Principles, the kind Americans of the 19th century had and were capable of having.

However contemptible taxes on consumption are, Frank Chodorov insisted that taxes on income and inheritance were "different in principle from all other taxes." In the seminal work, "The Income Tax: Root of all Evil," he elaborates:

The government says to the citizen: "Your earnings are not exclusively your own; we have a claim on them, and our claim precedes yours; we will allow you to keep some of it, because we recognize your need, not your right; but whatever we grant you for yourself is for us to decide."

Fundamentally, taxes on income imply a complete denial of private property, which is what socialism is in all its permutations; it rejects man's absolute and natural right to his property and vests property rights in the political establishment. The 16th Amendment did just that. When they incorporated the Amendment into the Constitution, Americans said a resounding "yes" to socialism.

Make no mistake: What's staving off communism is not the Constitution. If it so chooses, Congress has constitutional imprimatur to raise taxes to 100 percent of income, an odd thing considering the Declaration of Independence vests the source of man's rights in the Creator, not in government.

Philosopher Ayn Rand explained the source of man's rights with reference to man's nature. "Rights are conditions of existence required by man's nature for his survival," she wrote in "Atlas Shrugged." Be it the nature of man or divine law, "congressional law" is never the source of man's rights – it is merely entrusted with protecting the rights with which man is imbued.

This, the 16th Amendment corrupted.

In order to survive, man must – and it is in his nature to – transform the resources around him by mixing his labor with them and making them his own. Man's labor and his property are extensions of himself. As Chodorov elucidates, the right of ownership is an extension of the right to life. If ownership is not an absolute right but is instead subject to the vagaries of majority vote, then so is the right to life.

Statists will always counter by claiming that if not for the State, man would be unable to produce. Poppycock! Production predates government predation. Government doesn't produce wealth – it only consumes it. What, pray tell, would government have fed off if man were not hard at work well before the advent of the bureaucracy? That's like saying that the tick created the dog! As usual, the statists have it topsy-turvy. First came man – he is the basic unit of society, without which there can be no society. And without man's labor there is no wealth for government to siphon.

However you slice it, there is no moral difference between a lone burglar who steals stuff he doesn't own and an "organized society" that does the same. In a just society, the moral strictures that apply to the individual must also apply to the collective. A society founded on natural rights must not finesse theft.

The Founders intended for government to safeguard man's natural rights. The 16th Amendment gave government a limitless lien on a man's property and, by extension, on his life. The Amendment turned government into the almighty source – rather than the protector – of man's rights and Americans into indentured slaves.


To learn more about Ilana Mercer, visit her website, where she now has a special new feature for your comments.



TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Government
KEYWORDS: 16th; amendment; taxreform
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-62 next last
The STATE is your enemy
1 posted on 11/23/2002 11:02:34 AM PST by winner45
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: *Taxreform
bump
2 posted on 11/23/2002 11:04:11 AM PST by Libertarianize the GOP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Libertarianize the GOP
Good read bump
3 posted on 11/23/2002 11:16:01 AM PST by realistic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: winner45
I agree. Repeal the 16th Amendment but for heaven's sakes don't replace it with a national sales tax. It would be too easy for Congress to levy taxes faster. WA State does not have a state income tax, one of two remaining--Wyoming is the other, I think. Everytime a new governor pops up, first thing he/she starts talking about is instituting a state income, even when the dust of the election hasn't even settled. Even though Gary Locke has been governor for 6 years, he appointed Bill Gates, Sr to a governor-supported recommending a state income tax (that was announced last week to prove the issue isn't dead). Now this is fine if all the people are democrats since they just love instituting and raising taxes. However, as a Republican, who has endured 8 years of Clintoonians and 20 years of democrat governors, this is no balm to sooth fears of runaway taxes. Another instance of runaway "increase taxes" legislators--when those crooks returned to Washington, DC, they voted themselves a 3.1% pay increase. This is a total of $18,000 since 1999. However, these same crooks voted for only a 1.4% cost of living increase for social security and then took half of that by increasing the medicare premium. Plus, they leave a whole lot of people without unemployment benefits. Now, if I am correct, these same loathsome legislators at the first of the year, receive another pay increase. Actually, they receive a pay increase twice in less than 6 months--one when the federal government employees receive theirs in October followed by an increase at the beginning of the new year. Runaway tax legislators--there's no stopping them. Who guards the guards guarding the hen house?
4 posted on 11/23/2002 11:20:38 AM PST by lilylangtree
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All
Was the sixteenth ammendment ever ratified?

I remember reading an article a few years back from a former IRS employee who was making the case that it wasn't.

Does anyone know?
5 posted on 11/23/2002 11:21:32 AM PST by fellowpatriot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: winner45
On the downside, should he "choose" not to purchase, the consumer may starve or be destined to a rather austere life.

That's not a valid criticism of the sales tax. In Florida, for example, supermarket food purchases are not taxed. Nor are residential rents (until they get into the "luxury" level), nor medical services. In principle, and in practice, the poor can live their lives relatively unaffected by a well-crafted sales tax.

6 posted on 11/23/2002 11:25:27 AM PST by PatrickHenry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: winner45
I believe the only direct tax that the Federal Government can levy without apportionment is a tax on income (granted by the sixteenth amendment) so, a sales tax would require a new amendment or the tax would have to be apportioned.
7 posted on 11/23/2002 11:31:23 AM PST by al_possum39
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: winner45
The government says to the citizen: "Your earnings are not exclusively your own; we have a claim on them, and our claim precedes yours; we will allow you to keep some of it, because we recognize your need, not your right; but whatever we grant you for yourself is for us to decide."

Dont that just piss you off ? it does me!

8 posted on 11/23/2002 11:32:48 AM PST by ATOMIC_PUNK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fellowpatriot
Was the sixteenth ammendment ever ratified?

It is a dead debate and a waste of time because the issue has been settled in our courts. The only chance now is repeal.

9 posted on 11/23/2002 12:07:24 PM PST by Libertarianize the GOP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Libertarianize the GOP
How could it be settled in the courts? I thought the legislative branch was the only one with the power to enact.
10 posted on 11/23/2002 12:10:12 PM PST by fellowpatriot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: lilylangtree
Repeal the 16th Amendment but for heaven's sakes don't replace it with a national sales tax.

A national sales tax, when applied to all final goods and services, is the easiest, fairest, and best way for the federal gov't to collect revenue.

It would be too easy for Congress to levy taxes faster.

And they're not leving taxes fast enough now?

11 posted on 11/23/2002 12:11:32 PM PST by Extremely Extreme Extremist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: lilylangtree
Taxes (Ooooops), I mean Texas has no state income tax, yet. Every time we get a demonrat govrenor or legislatuer they scream to get one. But not haveing one is the main reason that the average Texan is more prosperous than people in other states.
12 posted on 11/23/2002 12:32:50 PM PST by fella
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: winner45
Click HERE for more about this interesting lady.
13 posted on 11/23/2002 12:42:10 PM PST by fella
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fellowpatriot
How could it be settled in the courts? I thought the legislative branch was the only one with the power to enact.

Where would you take a challenge as to whether the 16th amendment was legally ratified?

14 posted on 11/23/2002 1:11:17 PM PST by Libertarianize the GOP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: al_possum39; winner45

a sales tax would require a new amendment or the tax would have to be apportioned.

What Constitution have you been reading?

Constitution for the United States of America:

 

A LAW DICTIONARY
by John Bouvier, Revised Sixth Edition, 1856:

DUTIES.
In its most enlarged sense, this word is nearly equivalent to taxes, embracing all impositions or charges levied on persons or things;

A LAW DICTIONARY
by John Bouvier, Revised Sixth Edition, 1856:

EXCISES.
This word is used to signify an inland imposition, paid sometimes upon the consumption of the commodity, and frequently upon the retail sale.

Sales taxes are indirect taxes of the nature of excises or duties:

KNOWLTON v. MOORE, 178 U.S. 41 (1900)

Tyler v. U.S. 281 U.S. 497, 502 (1930)

Federalist #21:

The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787
(Farrand's Records)
James Mchenry before the Maryland House of Delegates.
Maryland Novr. 29th 1787--
Appendix A, CXLVIa, page 149, S9.

"Convention have also provided against any direct or Capitation Tax but according to an equal proportion among the respective States: This was thought a necessary precaution though it was the idea of every one that government would seldom have recourse to direct Taxation, and that the objects of Commerce would be more than Sufficient to answer the common exigencies of State and should further supplies be necessary, the power of Congress would not be exercised while the respective States would raise those supplies in any other manner more suitable to their own inclinations --"

A LAW DICTIONARY
by John Bouvier, Revised Sixth Edition, 1856:

"COMMERCE, trade, contracts
.
The exchange of commodities for commodities; considered in a legal point of view, it consists in the various agreements which have for their object to facilitate the exchange of the products of the earth or industry of man, with an intent to realize a profit. Pard. Dr. Coin. n. 1. In a narrower sense, commerce signifies any reciprocal agreements between two persons, by which one delivers to the other a thing, which the latter accepts, and for which he pays a consideration; if the consideration be money, it is called a sale; if any other thing than money, it is called exchange or barter. Domat, Dr. Pub. liv. 1, tit. 7, s. 1, n. "

Three of the four Supreme Court Justices who made the following ruling were delegates to the Constitutional Convention:

Hylton v. United States(1796), 3 U.S. 171

  • "A general power is given to Congress, to lay and collect taxes, of every kind or nature, without any restraint, except only on exports; but two rules are prescribed for their government, namely, uniformity and apportionment: Three kinds of taxes, to wit, duties, imposts, and excises by the first rule, and capitation, or other direct taxes, by the second rule. "
  • "the present Constitution was particularly intended to affect individuals, and not states, except in particular cases specified: And this is the leading distinction between the articles of Confederation and the present Constitution."
  • "Uniformity is an instant operation on individuals, without the intervention of assessments, or any regard to states,"
  • "[T]he DIRECT TAXES contemplated by the Constitution, are only two, to wit, A CAPITATION OR POLL TAX, simply, without regard to property, profession, or any other circumstance; and a tax on LAND."

  • 15 posted on 11/23/2002 1:29:57 PM PST by ancient_geezer
    [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

    To: Libertarianize the GOP; fellowpatriot

    Where would you take a challenge as to whether the 16th amendment was legally ratified?

    Congress and the States, who are the only parties to amending the Constitution per Article V.

    Now if a state were to bring suit in the courts, that would be a different kettle of fish, for they have the necessary standing to bring such a suit.

    Interestingly, inspite of the claims going around of the 16th having not been legally ratified, no state nor any legislator ever brought such a suit to the courts or ever made the claim that the 16th amendment, as officially, published was not what they intended or ratified in their legislatures.

    16 posted on 11/23/2002 1:36:25 PM PST by ancient_geezer
    [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

    To: ancient_geezer
    Haven't some of the tax protesters argued unsuccessfully in court that the 16th amendment was never legally ratified?
    17 posted on 11/23/2002 2:21:45 PM PST by Libertarianize the GOP
    [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

    To: winner45
    self-ping
    18 posted on 11/23/2002 2:32:53 PM PST by dpa5923
    [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

    To: winner45
    A great constititional bump!
    19 posted on 11/23/2002 2:40:04 PM PST by txzman
    [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

    To: lilylangtree
    I agree. Repeal the 16th Amendment but for heaven's sakes don't replace it with a national sales tax. It would be too easy for Congress to levy taxes faster.

    Most people today are clueless in what is being withheld from their paychecks.

    They let H&R Block do their tax returns and whistle while the Feds stick it up their wazoo, because they're too stupid to figure it out.

    On the other hand, with something like a consumption tax; when Joe Six Pack buys his six-pack of Budweiser for $7.00 and has to pay 90 cents in taxes, he will SEE how he is being fleeced by the gov't.

    Too few people do not pay attention to most of their bills. Ever stay in a hotel, fly on a commercial airline? The published rate is one thing. What you PAY is usually about 20% higher. Look at your telephone bill. It's loaded with more hidden charges than Clinton hummer interns in the White House.

    Further, a lot of the black market / underground economy will go away as it is sucked up into the retail market; and thus pour more money into Uncles' ever-thirsty-sucking coffers, since it will be collected and sent to DC.

    Wake Up America. Too many of us have been dumbed down, or lulled into the "Stepford Wives'" mentality for too long.

    20 posted on 11/23/2002 2:45:12 PM PST by Cobra64
    [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

    To: txzman
    A Short History of the 16th Amendment

    Strange as it may seem, the Sixteenth Amendment (which gave the American people the affliction of confiscatory income taxes) was never supposed to have passed. It was introduced by the Republicans as part of a political scheme to trick the Democrats, but it backfired.

    Background

    The Founding Fathers had rejected income taxes (or any other direct taxes) unless they were apportioned to each state according to population. Nevertheless, an income tax was levied during the Civil War and upheld by the Supreme Court on somewhat tenuous reasoning. When another income tax was enacted in 1893, the Supreme Court found it unconstitutional. In connection with the two Pollock cases reviewed in 1895, the Court declared that the act violated Article I, section 9 of the Constitution.

    During the following decade, however, the complexion of the Court changed somewhat, and so did public sentiment. There was great social unrest and the idea of a tax to "soak the rich" began to take root among liberals in both major parties. Several times the Democrats introduced bills to provide a tax on higher incomes but each time the conservative branch of the Republican party killed it in the Senate. The Democrats used this as evidence that the Republicans were the "party of the rich" and should be thrown out of power, forcing President William Howard Taft to acknowledge in political speeches that income taxes might be all right "in principle", but it was well known among close associates that he was strongly opposed to such a tax.

    The Bailey Bill

    In April 1909, Senator Joseph W. Bailey, a conservative Democrat from Texas who was also opposed to income taxes, decided to further embarrass the Republicans by forcing them to openly oppose an income tax bill similar to those which had been introduced in the past. He introduced his bill expecting it to get the usual opposition. However, to his amazement, Teddy Roosevelt and a growing element of liberals in the Republican party came out in favor of the bill and it looked as though it was going to pass.

    Not only was Bailey surprised, but Senator Nelson W. Aldrich of Rhode Island, the Republican floor leader, frantically met with Senator Henry Cabot Lodge of Massachusetts and President Taft to work out a strategy to demolish the Bailey tax bill. Their own party was split too widely to permit a direct confrontation, so the strategy was to pull a political end run. They announced that they favored an income tax but only if it were an amendment to the Constitution. Within their own circle, they discussed how it might get approval of the House and the Senate, but they were quite certain that it could be defeated in the more conservative states-three-fourths of which were required in order to ratify the amendment.

    Thus, the Democrats were off guard when President Taft unexpectedly sent a message to Congress on June 16th, 1909, recommending the passage of a constitutional amendment to legalize federal income tax legislation.

    The strategy threw the liberals into an uproar. At the very moment when their Bailey bill was about to pass, the Republicans were coming out for an amendment to the Constitution which would probably be defeated by the states.

    Reaction to the Amendment

    Congressman Cordell Hull (D-Tenn., and later Secretary of State under FDR) saw exactly what was happening. He took the floor to excoriate the Republican leaders. Said he:

    "No person at all familiar with the present trend of national legislation will seriously insist that these same Republican leaders are over-anxious to see the country adopt an income tax...What powerful influence, what new light and deepseated motive suddenly moves these political veterans to 'about face' and pretend to warmly embrace this doctrine which they have heretofore uniformly denounced?" {1}

    He went on to expose what he considered to be a political trick. He needn't have been so concerned. The slogan of "soak the rich" automatically aroused Pavlovian salivation among politicians both in Washington and the states. The Senate approved the Sixteenth Amendment with an astonishing unanimity of 77-0! The House approved it by a vote of 318-14.

    When Republican Congressman Sereno E. Payne of New York, who had introduced the amendment in the House, saw that this end run was turning into a winning touchdown for the opposition, he was horrified. He went to the floor and openly denounced the bill he had sponsored. Said he:

    "As to the general policy of an income tax, I am utterly opposed to it. I believe with Gladstone that it tends to make a nation of liars. I believe it is the most easily concealed of any tax that can be laid, the most difficult of enforcement, and the hardest to collect; that it is, in a word, a tax upon the income of honest men and an exemption, to a greater or lesser extent, of the income of rascals; and so I am opposed to any income tax in time of peace...I hope that if the Constitution is amended in this way the time will not come when the American people will ever want to enact an income tax except in time of war." {2}

    The end run of the Republican leadership did indeed backfire. State after state ratified this "soak the rich" amendment until it went into full force and effect on February 12, 1913 (Ed.note: Mr. Bill Benson, in his book "The Law That Never Was" has since documented massive...and outcome changing...federal interference in the certification of the votes of the individual state legislatures. The votes for and against from Kentucky, for instance, were switched by then Secretary of State Philander Knox.)
    21 posted on 11/23/2002 2:45:37 PM PST by txzman
    [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

    To: lilylangtree
    Alaska is also without a state income tax, but every democrat who gets in front of a microphone talks about how badly we need one. I sure hope our new republican governor and republican legislature can kill that puppy shortly after they convene.
    22 posted on 11/23/2002 2:49:42 PM PST by Brad C.
    [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

    To: PatrickHenry
    In Florida, for example, supermarket food purchases are not taxed.

    In North Carolina, we have a special Food Tax added to all food purchases. Most states have Soft Drink taxes, Fuel taxes, sugar taxes, ...

    23 posted on 11/23/2002 2:49:52 PM PST by gitmo
    [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

    To: gitmo
    Most states have Soft Drink taxes, Fuel taxes, sugar taxes, ...

    Florida taxes that stuff (I donno about sugar). It's the basic kinds of food -- meat, bread, beans, milk, etc. that don't get taxed. There's certainly a restaurant tax.

    24 posted on 11/23/2002 3:02:11 PM PST by PatrickHenry
    [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

    To: winner45
    we will allow you to keep some of it, because we recognize your need, not your right; but whatever we grant you for yourself is for us to decide."

    Not long ago someone posted the difference between a 100% tax-free society (totally free) with a 100% taxed society (totally enslaved). While a certain level of govt. is necessary for a society to function in a manner befitting a 'freedom' loving populous, I'd much prefer the decision as to how much tax shall be applied be left up to those being taxed, rather than those whose sole purpose is to expend it, as well as the manner in which it is collected.

    Besides, slavery was outlawed years ago and tax slavery is no exception.

    25 posted on 11/23/2002 3:13:41 PM PST by budwiesest
    [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

    To: lilylangtree
    WA State does not have a state income tax, one of two remaining--Wyoming is the other

    Ahem. Texas has no state income tax.

    26 posted on 11/23/2002 3:13:42 PM PST by LibKill
    [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

    To: Cobra64
    Further, a lot of the black market / underground economy will go away

    Funny you should use the term 'underground economy'. Has a familiar ring to 'underground railroad'. Perhaps both are attempts to escape forms of involuntary servitude.
    ---

    AMENDMENT XIII Passed by Congress January 31, 1865. Ratified December 6, 1865. Note: A portion of Article IV, section 2, of the Constitution was superseded by the 13th amendment. Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
    -----

    Seems the only parties who might be eligible to pay and income tax might be those that have been 'duly convicted'. At last check, I haven't.

    27 posted on 11/23/2002 3:40:09 PM PST by budwiesest
    [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

    To: winner45
    And the repeal 17th while you're at it.

    Increase the size of the House to 5,000+ with a new amendment.

    Put that part about being a representative Republic back in play.

    28 posted on 11/23/2002 4:11:11 PM PST by metesky
    [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

    To: lilylangtree
    I am wondering about the statement that says a national sales tax would make it easier for Congress to levy taxes faster. The one up side is that everybody pays sales tax. More than half the nation does not pay income tax -- yet, they all get to vote to raise taxes on the rest of us. Soon they will outnumber us and we will never again get a tax cut. You can see this happening where property taxes keep getting voted higher because all the non-property owners get to vote on it. It is not far from an armed holdup, IMHO.
    29 posted on 11/23/2002 4:14:49 PM PST by Inkie
    [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

    To: ancient_geezer
    Hi Geezer, thanks for posting the link to the online Cinstitution. I've bookmarked it.

    In you post you disputed whether a new amendment would be needed to authorize a sales tax. I believe that the original poster was referring to the following, this assumes a sales tax is a direct tax, if I buy a house and pay a sales tax I would view that as a direct tax.

    Article I

    Section 2

    ..... 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. The actual Enumeration shall be made within three years after the first meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent term of ten years, in such manner as they shall by law direct. The number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty thousand, but each state shall have at least one Representative; and until such enumeration shall be made, the state of New Hampshire shall be entitled to chuse three, Massachusetts eight, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations one, Connecticut five, New York six, New Jersey four, Pennsylvania eight, Delaware one, Maryland six, Virginia ten, North Carolina five, South Carolina five, and Georgia three.

    I haven't given this enough thought to decide if I agree, but it seem reasonable. The 16th amendment circumvented this passage.

    30 posted on 11/23/2002 4:21:28 PM PST by Leto
    [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

    To: Libertarianize the GOP
    Don't give more taxing power to congress without repealing the 16th.

    "Trust but Verify".. Ronald Reagan
    31 posted on 11/23/2002 4:22:49 PM PST by Leto
    [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

    To: Cobra64
    When I pay sales they take a little bite each time, 1 buck here 2 bucks there. When I go through the pain of doing my income tax, I understand to the dollar how much the feds have confiscated from my family, This of course doesn't include the taxes built into the products I buy due to corporate income taxes.

    THe idea that Sales Taxes are more visible flies in the face of most people's experiences.


    32 posted on 11/23/2002 4:26:23 PM PST by Leto
    [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

    To: Leto

    this assumes a sales tax is a direct tax, if I buy a house and pay a sales tax I would view that as a direct tax.

    The payer of the indirect tax does not own the property until after the transfer is complete including the payment of tax due.

    The test of indirect or direct:

    If the tax levied on an owner only, and because of ownership it is direct.

    If a tax is levied against the receiver of property on an event or exchange that tranfers value or ownership from one to another through financial or commercial event or activity, the tax is indirect.

    The purchaser buying property, any property whether real, personal, or merely a consumption item cannot own a thing until the transaction is complete. Title cannot be perfected and you cannot own until the requirements of law are met, i.e. taxes laid on the sales transaction have been paid.

    An indirect tax levies taxes on the activity of commerce and the exchanges that occur. Not the property per-se as in a property tax that can be levied repeatedly on an owner as in annual property(real and personal)taxes of the states(which are indeed direct taxes.)

    Remember,

    KNOWLTON v. MOORE, 178 U.S. 41 (1900)

    Flint v. Stone Tracy Co.(1911), 220 U.S. 107


    33 posted on 11/23/2002 7:41:22 PM PST by ancient_geezer
    [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

    To: Leto; Libertarianize the GOP

    Don't give more taxing power to congress without repealing the 16th.

    I wasn't aware that anyone was proposing to tax exports to foreign nations? That is the only prohibition on Congress, regardless of the the 16th amendment.

    Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co.(1916), 240 U.S. 103:

    Actually the 16th changed nothing at all except to force the Court to apply the constitution power of Congress to tax under Article I Section 8 properly.

    Just repeal the 16th, all that will happen is income from real property(e.g.. rent) and income from personal property, (e.g. stock dividends, bond interest, patent and copyright royalties) woudl not be taxable against the owner of the property without apportionment in accord to the population of the states.

    It does not mean the national government cannot levy and collect taxes on rents for example when explicitly collected from the payer of rents(as an indirect tax) instead of being collected from the owner receiving rent(as a direct tax).

    The distinction between the direct tax and indirect tax being in regard to who pays the tax, the owner(direct), or the the purchaser(indirect) of service, goods, real or personal property.

    34 posted on 11/23/2002 7:55:15 PM PST by ancient_geezer
    [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

    To: Leto; Cobra64

    THe idea that Sales Taxes are more visible flies in the face of most people's experiences.

    Gee, I see it quite differently, I am quite aware of the sales taxes I am forced to pay. As are the folks in any place trying to raise said taxes. The resistence on the part of the public is fierce against sales tax hikes and not take lightly by most local governments.

    35 posted on 11/23/2002 8:00:22 PM PST by ancient_geezer
    [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

    To: budwiesest
    The topic is TAXES. Not slavery.
    36 posted on 11/23/2002 8:09:48 PM PST by Cobra64
    [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

    To: lilylangtree
    IF YOU WANT THIS MAN – AND MEN LIKE HIM – TO REMAIN IN CONTROL OF YOUR ECONOMIC AND PERSONAL DESTINY, CONTINUE TO TOLERATE THE CURRENT MARXIST INCOME TAX SYSTEM.

    ONE MORE TIME:

    IT’S ABOUT

    P O W E R AND C O N T R O L!!

    SIGN THE PETITION AT HTTP://WWW.VOTR.ORG. Then find out how you can do more to end America’s peculiar SPRING MADNESS.


    37 posted on 11/23/2002 8:33:27 PM PST by Dick Bachert
    [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

    To: Leto; Cobra64

    THe idea that Sales Taxes are more visible flies in the face of most people's experiences.

    70% of the voting public don't mind higher income tax rates and clamor for more from government looking for the top 40% of income earners/producers to foot the bill. You figure the current system is visible in the face of most people's experience? Most folks are very much aware of sales taxes to the degree of even mentioning rate increases brings every one and his brother and dead uncle out to the polls around here. National income taxes, nary a peep except from those in the upper 40% of voters taking the real hit.

    A very large proportion of the voters in the United States pay little or no individual income taxes (High personal exemption, standard deduction and EITC) which removes a very large proportion of the electorate from participation in such taxes completely(more than 20% of families). In fact the largest tax they pay and are visible to them are excises & state sales taxes. This is even true of the Armey "Flat" tax which would provide adult $13,600 exemptions right of the top.

    Note the distribution of National Taxes by kind and how much is actually hidden from the view of the electorate, or implied to be something other than a tax (e.g. "Social Insurance" FICA).

    http://www.cbpp.org/taxday98.htm

    CBO Estimates of Effective Federal Tax Rates for 1998

    (% of gross income '97 dollars)

    Families Ranked by Income Quintile

    Individual Income Tax

    Social Insurance Taxes

    Corporate Income Tax

    Excise Tax

    Total Federal Taxes

    Lowest($11,400) -6.9% 7.8% 0.5% 2.8% 4.2%
    Second($28,600) 1.7% 9.9% 0.9% 1.6% 14.2%
    Third($45,100) 6.3% 10.8% 1.4% 1.2% 19.7%
    Fourth($65,600) 9.0% 11.3% 1.4% 1.0% 22.7%
    Highest($167,500) 16.2% 8.0% 4.6% 0.5% 29.3%
     
    Top10%($240,700) 18.0% 6.7% 5.8% 0.4% 30.8%
    Top5%($355,800) 19.7% 5.3% 7.0% 0.3% 32.3%
    Top1%($1,016,900) 23.0% 3.0% 9.5% 0.2% 35.7%
     
    Average for all families($62,400) 11.2% 9.3% 3.0% 0.9% 24.4%
    Source: Congressional Budget Office, May 15, 1997.
    Notes:  Pre-tax family income is the sum of wages, salaries, self-employment income, rents, taxable and non-taxable interest, dividends, realized capital gains, and all cash transfer payments. Income also includes the employer share of Social Security and federal unemployment insurance payroll taxes, and the corporate income tax. For purposes of ranking by adjusted family income (AFI), income for each family is divided by the poverty threshold for a family of that size. Quintiles contain equal numbers of people. Families with zero or negative income are excluded from the lowest income category but included in the total.
    Individual income taxes are distributed directly to families paying those taxes. Payroll taxes are distributed to families paying those taxes directly or indirectly through their employers. Federal excise taxes are distributed to families according to their consumption of the taxed good or service. Corporate income taxes are distributed to families according to their share of capital income.

    This distribution of immediate participation in the cost of government does not bode well for the reductions in government where those who derive the most in immediate benefit from government have the least participation in paying the bill.

     

    The Crisis in Democracy

    The Honorable James DeMint (R-SC)
    United States House of Representatives
    THURSDAY, APRIL 5, 2001
    12:00 noon

    "There has been a shift in the relationship between individuals and government, he argues, such that fewer and fewer are paying taxes at the same time that more and more are receiving increasingly generous benefits. If it becomes the case that most voters do not bear a financial burden for this largess, then there will be little to restrain--and significant political incentives to encourage--the continued growth of government. And at that point, DeMint warns, we have reached a major crisis in our democracy."

    Hiding taxes by embedding them in price inflation (e.g. Corporate taxes & employer's portion of FICA), misdirecting the attention of the electorate by calling taxes contributions to retirement, disability & insurance(e.g. FICA), tax credits, and large exemptions and standard deductions removing folks from even the nominal participation of filing, just makes for perpetuation of the same old hide the thimble tax games.

    Milton Friedman as quoted by Northwest Florida Daily News, 10-16-2000:


    38 posted on 11/23/2002 8:47:41 PM PST by ancient_geezer
    [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

    To: Leto
    My understanding is the constitution provided for taxes indirectly through the states. The intention was to avoid taxation without representation by allowing the fed to tax individuals directly. If taxes were collected by the states then paid to the fed instead of directly to the fed we would have more control over the amount. Our representatives should be focused on reducing our tax burdon to the fed not allocating more funds for their state (Clintonomics).
    39 posted on 11/23/2002 8:54:33 PM PST by RockyMtnMan
    [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

    To: RockyMtnMan; Leto

    My understanding is the constitution provided for taxes indirectly through the states.

    That was true of the Articles of Confederation, but not the Constitution which replaced the Articles, the power to tax the individual as opposed to making requisition from the states being chief among the reasons for drafting the Constitution.

    The problem was the Continental Congress had no means to enforce a tax on the states, and therefore the Constitution was written to provide a concurrent authority to lay and collect taxes from the individual.

    Federalist #21:

    Federalist #34:

    Federalist #39:

    Federalist #45:

    James Madison, Elliots Debates Vol 3 p128:


    40 posted on 11/23/2002 9:12:22 PM PST by ancient_geezer
    [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

    To: fellowpatriot
    well, some people claim Ohio wasn't actually a state until 1953, because the US COngress never actually made them one in 1803. And, because Ohio was one of the states to ratify the amendment, blah, blah,

    Then was Taft never President? What about the elections and Ohio's electoral votes and votes by Ohio representatives and senators in Congress? what a legal headache.

    When they passed the thing as part of Ohio's 150th anniversary in 1953, they set it all retroactive to 1803. Thus, making all argument null and void anyway. I guess.
    41 posted on 11/23/2002 9:16:42 PM PST by BaBaStooey
    [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

    To: ancient_geezer
    Then what was Article I section 10 of the constitution all about?

    No capitation, or other direct, tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken. (Repealed by the 16th)
    42 posted on 11/23/2002 9:24:27 PM PST by RockyMtnMan
    [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

    To: ancient_geezer
    Further, it seems the 16th gives the fed precisely the power they needed to collect income taxes directly from citizens. Amendment XVI 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.

    That last statement screams of taxation without representation.

    43 posted on 11/23/2002 9:29:58 PM PST by RockyMtnMan
    [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

    To: RockyMtnMan

    Then what was Article I section 10 of the constitution all about?

    Levying property taxes on real estate and slaves, in the same manner as the states did, by collecting them form the owners of such property same as is done today in most states/counties.

    Federalist #21:

    It is a signal advantage of taxes on articles of consumption, that they contain in their own nature a security against excess. They prescribe their own limit; which cannot be exceeded without defeating the end proposed, that is, an extension of the revenue. ... Impositions of this kind usually fall under the denomination of indirect taxes, and must for a long time constitute the chief part of the revenue raised in this country.

    Those of the direct kind, which principally relate to land and buildings, may admit of a rule of apportionment. Either the value of land, or the number of the people, may serve as a standard. The state of agriculture and the populousness of a country have been considered as nearly connected with each other. And, as a rule, for the purpose intended, numbers, in the view of simplicity and certainty, are entitled to a preference.


    As was also pointed out by the first Supreme Court, where 3 of four of the judges ruling on the case were Delegates to the Constitututional Convention:

    Hylton v. United States(1796), 3 U.S. 171

  • "A general power is given to Congress, to lay and collect taxes, of every kind or nature, without any restraint, except only on exports; but two rules are prescribed for their government, namely, uniformity and apportionment: Three kinds of taxes, to wit, duties, imposts, and excises by the first rule, and capitation, or other direct taxes, by the second rule. "
  • "the present Constitution was particularly intended to affect individuals, and not states, except in particular cases specified: And this is the leading distinction between the articles of Confederation and the present Constitution."
  • "Uniformity is an instant operation on individuals, without the intervention of assessments, or any regard to states,"
  • "[T]he DIRECT TAXES contemplated by the Constitution, are only two, to wit, A CAPITATION OR POLL TAX, simply, without regard to property, profession, or any other circumstance; and a tax on LAND."

  •  

    Check out he hyperlinks I have provided, they go to the transcripts of the early papers and Debates in regard to the Constitution and our early government. There is a wealth of information there. There seems to be alot of myth and misinformation floating around as to what the Constitution really is about. I highly suggest the study it is eye opening once one get into what the founder really had to say and did back then.

    44 posted on 11/23/2002 9:39:03 PM PST by ancient_geezer
    [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

    To: RockyMtnMan

    Further, it seems the 16th gives the fed precisely the power they needed to collect income taxes directly from citizens.

    The National government has always had that authority as regards trades, occupations, professions and employments.

    Springer v. United States(1880), 102 U.S. 586

  • "The central and controlling question in this case is whether the tax which was levied on the income, gains, and profits of the plaintiff in error, as set forth in the record, and by pretended virtue of the acts of Congress and parts of acts therein mentioned, is a direct tax."
  • "Our conclusions are, that direct taxes, within the meaning of the Constitution, are only capitation taxes, as expressed in that instrument, and taxes on real estate; and that the tax of which the plaintiff in error complains is within the category of an excise or duty."
  • "[W]henever the government has imposed a tax which it recognized as a direct tax, it has never been applied to any objects but real estate and slaves."
  • "If the laws here in question involved any wrong or unnecessary harshness, it was for Congress, or the people who make congresses, to see that the evil was corrected.
    The remedy does not lie with the judicial branch of the government."
  • Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co.(1916), 240 U.S. 103:

    The 16th merely make it clear that the National Government to lay collect taxes on the income from real and personal property to overcome the Pollock decision that rents, dividends and interest were attached to the property that produced them and could not be taxed against the owner thereof, it however did not prevent taxes from being laid on employmees nor fror being collected from payers of rents, wages etc.

    Pollock v. Farmers' Loan and Trust Company, 157 U.S. 429 (1895)

    POLLOCK v. FARMERS' LOAN & TRUST CO., 158 U.S. 601 (1895):


    45 posted on 11/23/2002 9:47:40 PM PST by ancient_geezer
    [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

    To: RockyMtnMan

    That last statement screams of taxation without representation.

    How is that? Those who pay taxes are the same as those who can vote. What does census & enumeration have to do with that other than to establish the proportion of representation in each state.

    The real issue now day is not "taxation without representation" as everyone has the opertunity to vote.

    Rather the issue now days is more of representation without taxation.

    Milton Friedman as quoted by Northwest Florida Daily News, 10-16-2000:


    Walter Williams, World Net Daily, 10-25-2000

    According to the most recent U.S. Treasury Department figures, in 1997 the top 1 percent of income-earners (those with income of $250,000 and higher) paid 33 percent of all federal income taxes. The top 5 percent of income-earners ($108,000 and over) paid 52 percent, and the top 50 percent ($36,000 and over) paid 96 percent of income taxes. Guess what the bottom 50 percent of income earners paid?

    If you're among those who pay little or no federal income taxes, what do you care about tax cuts? Moreover, if you think tax cuts pose a threat to government handout programs, you might be openly hostile and support Al Gore's silly "risky scheme" talk. So many Americans paying little or no federal taxes makes for a natural spending constituency. It's like me in the restaurant: What do I care about extravagance if you're footing the bill?

    To remove taxation of the individual, is to remove the goad which assures accountability of government to the electorate. Federal tax rates are high because a majority of the electorate do not share proportionately in the burden their demand for largesse imposes on the minority of citizens.

    The siren call for representation without taxation is the formula that got us where we are at today. The ability to hide or disguise taxation from the view of large sectors of the electorate allows the Congress to get away with the creation of the evergrowing monster that it fosters.

    A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul.
    -George Bernard Shaw

    Liberty and freedom have a price, responsibility. If that price is avoided there are no brakes on the growth of government, the ultimate result is the end of freedom through creeping socialism.

    Right now the bottom 60% perceive little to no "Individual Income Tax" burden,(in many cases even a handout) and 70% of the voting public clamors for more from government looking for the top 40% of income earners/producers to foot the bill. That perception continues to grow ever stronger by eliminating even more participants from the Federal Individual Income Tax rolls as proposed in the tax reduction proposals through changes in personal exemption limits and other mechanisms such as the EITC.

    46 posted on 11/23/2002 9:55:10 PM PST by ancient_geezer
    [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

    To: ancient_geezer
    How is that? Those who pay taxes are the same as those who can vote. What does census & enumeration have to do with that other than to establish the proportion of representation in each state.

    16/17 year olds do not vote but they work, although 99.9% of them do not make enough money to be taxed.

    Just because you vote doesn't mean your candidate cares about your interests. The tax system should inherently force legislaters to reduce taxes because it's in the best interest of the voters. Instead special interests get tax breaks because they donated a bunch of money to their representatives, in which everyone else foots the bill.

    The proportion of representation is key to applying pressure at the federal level to change tax policy. Under the current income tax system there is no incentive for our "representatives" to actually represent us. Instead they fight for their pet projects which we ultimately have to fund without regard to our interests.

    Tax reduction/curbing government spending is in everyones best interest, majority and minority alike, then why do our legislators fail us in this regard?

    47 posted on 11/23/2002 10:12:44 PM PST by RockyMtnMan
    [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

    To: RockyMtnMan

    16/17 year olds do not vote but they work, although 99.9% of them do not make enough money to be taxed.

    So they work. Are you now proposing we provide the vote to children as well?

    Tax reduction/curbing government spending is in everyones best interest, majority and minority alike, then why do our legislators fail us in this regard?

     

    Simple, those receiving the greatest portion of largess and least perceive the tax burden, outvote those who pay for the largess under the current system of bracketed taxes.

    Sir Alex Fraser Tytler (1742-1813). Scottish jurist and historian:

    "A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largess from the public treasury. From that time on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the results that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship.

    Go to a single rate, single stage, visible Retail Sales Tax where everyone participates in the tax system where all individuals perceive the cost of government in proportion to there benefit from the economy there will be a greater push for change the representation in Congress.

    Without universal participation and the ability for government to hide substantial portions of the real tax burdens from view we can just expect more of the same old shell games.

    A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul.
    -George Bernard Shaw


    You want to see change, then work for the conditions that will encourage that change. Guaranteed we will not see and amendment to repeal the 16th and prohibit income taxes until we have a viable alternative in place, and the income tax statutes gone.

    Support the enactment of the bills before congress that would actually move in the direction to achieve that.

    Billy Tauzin offers one solution, a 15% retail sales tax that replaces all income taxes but doesn't touch SS/Mediscare payroll taxes, that comes close to meeting the essentials of what it takes to reverse trend?:

    H.R.2717
    Sponsor: Rep Tauzin, W. J. (Billy)(introduced 8/2/2001)
    Title: To promote freedom, fairness, and economic opportunity for families by repealing the income tax, abolishing the Internal Revenue Service, and enacting a national retail sales tax to be administered primarily by the States.

    John Linder (R Texas) offers a more comprehensive bill to kill all income and payroll taxes outright, and provide a revenue neutral replacement:

    H.R.2525
    SPONSOR: Rep Linder, John (introduced 07/17/2001)
    A bill to promote freedom, fairness, and economic opportunity by repealing the income tax and other taxes, abolishing the Internal Revenue Service, and enacting a national retail sales tax to be administered primarily by the States.
    Refer:
    http://www.fairtax.org & http://www.salestax.org
    See Also:
    Fairtax FAQ (NSBU)

    Other bills, moving in the proper direction are:

    To get the ball rolling and focus Congress Critter's attention:

    H.R.2714
    Sponsor: Rep Largent, Steve(introduced 8/2/2001)
    Title: To terminate the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.
    A bill to prohibit he imposition of any tax by the Internal Revenue Code: (1) for any taxable year beginning after December 31, 2005.

    To sunset some agencies we don't need and rein in their expenditures:

    H.R.2373
    Sponsor: Rep Brady, Kevin(introduced 6/28/2001)
    Title: To provide for the periodic review of the efficiency and public need for Federal agencies, to establish a Commission for the purpose of reviewing the efficiency and public need of such agencies, and to provide for the abolishment of agencies for which a public need does not exist.

    Modification then enact and ratify:

    H.J.RES.45
    Sponsor: (introduced 4/25/2001)
    Latest Major Action: 5/9/2001 Referred to House subcommitte.
    Title: Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relative to abolishing personal income, estate, and gift taxes and prohibiting the Untied States Government from engaging in the business in competition with its citizens.

    (Modified to prohibit all income, payroll, gift estate taxes as HR2525 calls for, or we will see European VAT style hidden taxes along with payroll excises to take over in the place of the of the current individual income tax(i.e. personal income tax) that Ron Paul amendment prohibits.)

    And to keep em reminded that there is indeed a Constitution to pay attention to:

    H.R.175
    Sponsor: (introduced 1/3/2001)
    Latest Major Action: 2/12/2001 Referred to House subcommittee
    Title: To require Congress to specify the source of authority under the United States Constitution for the enactment of laws, and for other purposes.


    48 posted on 11/23/2002 10:28:38 PM PST by ancient_geezer
    [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

    To: ancient_geezer
    So they work. Are you now proposing we provide the vote to children as well?

    Not at all, although I would propose a redefinition of child in this day and age (to me Clinton was a child, whiney, spoiled, and hormone filled!).

    Thank you for the comprehensive HB info, obviously you have an interest in tax reform.

    49 posted on 11/23/2002 10:46:29 PM PST by RockyMtnMan
    [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

    To: lilylangtree
    Who guards the guards the hen house?

    Who watches the watchmen?

    50 posted on 11/23/2002 11:43:47 PM PST by Dr.Deth
    [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]


    Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
    first 1-5051-62 next last

    Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

    Free Republic
    Browse · Search
    News/Activism
    Topics · Post Article

    FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
    FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson