(06-03-2015, 10:22 AM)michaelsean Wrote: I never really understood why an income tax was unconstitutional before the 16th amendment. The Constitution seems pretty broad in allowing Congress to create taxes.
An income tax is what is referred to as a direct tax. Indirect taxes are those such as sales taxes where you pay it to the seller and then the seller files the return, or an excise tax or tariff, same deal. The person actually paying the tax is not the filer. The Constitution provided the authority for Congress to levy taxes, however, if it is a direct tax it must be apportioned among the states. Essentially, this meant that a federal income tax could not be used to federal revenues, so much as it would be to give money to the states to pay their expenditures.
The 16th allows for Congress to levy direct taxes without having to apportion them among the states because up until that point they had to rely on excises and tariffs to pay the federal bills.
"A great democracy has got to be progressive, or it will soon cease to be either great or a democracy..." - TR
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR
(06-03-2015, 10:30 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: An income tax is what is referred to as a direct tax. Indirect taxes are those such as sales taxes where you pay it to the seller and then the seller files the return, or an excise tax or tariff, same deal. The person actually paying the tax is not the filer. The Constitution provided the authority for Congress to levy taxes, however, if it is a direct tax it must be apportioned among the states. Essentially, this meant that a federal income tax could not be used to federal revenues, so much as it would be to give money to the states to pay their expenditures.
The 16th allows for Congress to levy direct taxes without having to apportion them among the states because up until that point they had to rely on excises and tariffs to pay the federal bills.
Oh OK thanks.
“History teaches that grave threats to liberty often come in times of urgency, when constitutional rights seem too extravagant to endure.”-Thurgood Marshall
(06-03-2015, 09:51 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: They tried to implement one during the war of 1812 to pay for it, then they did implement during the Civil War. The courts decided a peacetime income tax was unconstitutional in 1895. The income tax was proposed during 1894 to replace lost revenues from reducing tariffs. This reasoning is why the 16th was passed and why we now have income tax. All because of a reduction in revenue from tariffs and excise taxes.
What killed those taxes? Free trade. Not even joking, we have free trade to blame for the income tax.
We were also promised the income tax would never go above 5%. We didn't need an inclme tax prior to woodrow wilson because the size of gov was relatively small. We have the constitutional amendment because they promised it won't go above 5%.
(06-04-2015, 05:37 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: We were also promised the income tax would never go above 5%. We didn't need an inclme tax prior to woodrow wilson because the size of gov was relatively small. We have the constitutional amendment because they promised it won't go above 5%.
Your infatuation with Woodrow Wilson is getting to be rather humorous. Your blame is misplaced for a number of reasons. First, the attempt for a peacetime income tax was being pushed for before Wilson ever took office. Second, the reduction in reliance on excise taxes and tariffs had been going on for decades at the point Wilson was in office. And lastly, Taft is the POTUS that asked for the constitutional amendment to have an income tax. We needed an income tax long before Wilson was in the White House.
"A great democracy has got to be progressive, or it will soon cease to be either great or a democracy..." - TR
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR
(06-04-2015, 08:07 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Your infatuation with Woodrow Wilson is getting to be rather humorous. Your blame is misplaced for a number of reasons. First, the attempt for a peacetime income tax was being pushed for before Wilson ever took office. Second, the reduction in reliance on excise taxes and tariffs had been going on for decades at the point Wilson was in office. And lastly, Taft is the POTUS that asked for the constitutional amendment to have an income tax. We needed an income tax long before Wilson was in the White House.
True, but if you ever had the misfortune of watching Glenn Beck, he liked to blame Wilson for pretty much everything he calls "progressivism". And it's pretty clear by now that the Paul family and Beck are StLucie's sole sources for absolute truth.
(06-04-2015, 08:07 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Your infatuation with Woodrow Wilson is getting to be rather humorous. Your blame is misplaced for a number of reasons. First, the attempt for a peacetime income tax was being pushed for before Wilson ever took office. Second, the reduction in reliance on excise taxes and tariffs had been going on for decades at the point Wilson was in office. And lastly, Taft is the POTUS that asked for the constitutional amendment to have an income tax. We needed an income tax long before Wilson was in the White House.
You should read Woodrow Wilson's War and Theodore & Woodrow
He was a terrible man.... And was one of the major lynch pins to the fall of what we held sacred.
(06-04-2015, 03:57 PM)GMDino Wrote: I've got 40 hours until I leave for vacation for a week with my family...so I'll bite on this one. (It should be good!)
(06-04-2015, 04:37 PM)GMDino Wrote: What did we hold sacred? When did it fall?
I want YOU to tell me.
Why.... so I can spend time to type everything out so you can post some obnoxious meme.... If there was to be a legitimate discussion on that era then that's totally different .... but we both know you have no interest in that sort of thing
(06-04-2015, 06:04 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Why.... so I can spend time to type everything out so you can post some obnoxious meme.... If there was to be a legitimate discussion on that era then that's totally different .... but we both know you have no interest in that sort of thing
We're down to a little over 36 hours and all you have to do is answer two questions.
So far you've found time to post twice and refused to answer.
Please continue...
Your anger and ego will always reveal your true self.
Richmond, I couldn't find the first book he lists, but the second one is by Andrew Napolitano, a former judge and now senior judicial analyst for FNC.
"A great democracy has got to be progressive, or it will soon cease to be either great or a democracy..." - TR
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR
(06-04-2015, 03:53 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: He was a terrible man.... And was one of the major lynch pins to the fall of what we held sacred.
I'm not denying this, well, in the way that he was a huge expansionist of government. I'm just saying that for this one thing the blame is misplaced.
As a person he was a good man. Most people are when they do things like Wilson did. They have good intentions.
"A great democracy has got to be progressive, or it will soon cease to be either great or a democracy..." - TR
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR
(06-04-2015, 07:22 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Richmond, I couldn't find the first book he lists, but the second one is by Andrew Napolitano, a former judge and now senior judicial analyst for FNC.
(06-04-2015, 07:36 PM)RICHMONDBENGAL_07 Wrote: Hehe...Well that's not biased at all!
Napolitano isn't your average FNC conservative. He was a Ron Paul guy, so he's quasi libertarian. If I remember correctly, he tends to be level headed with regards to the law.
(06-04-2015, 09:31 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Napolitano isn't your average FNC conservative. He was a Ron Paul guy, so he's quasi libertarian. If I remember correctly, he tends to be level headed with regards to the law.
He is. The only non-libertarian position I know of his off the top of my head is that he thinks abortion should be prohibited. I don't think he personally agrees with SSM, but he recognizes that prohibiting ti is unconstitutional.
"A great democracy has got to be progressive, or it will soon cease to be either great or a democracy..." - TR
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR
(06-04-2015, 09:31 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Napolitano isn't your average FNC conservative. He was a Ron Paul guy, so he's quasi libertarian. If I remember correctly, he tends to be level headed with regards to the law.
Fair enough
I admit I don't know much about him, and I have a tendency to dismiss anything by FOX out of hand.
![[Image: 4CV0TeR.png]](https://i.imgur.com/4CV0TeR.png)
![[Image: giphy.gif]](http://media.giphy.com/media/fV7xZPk6aeiUU/giphy.gif)
![[Image: giphy.gif]](https://media0.giphy.com/media/1kwsTjL8BNqlszNtnCE/giphy.gif)
![[Image: albert-einstein-if-you-cant-explain-it-s...enough.png]](http://blog.gauffin.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/albert-einstein-if-you-cant-explain-it-simply-you-dont-understand-it-well-enough.png)
![[Image: m6moCD1.png]](http://i.imgur.com/m6moCD1.png)
![[Image: ulVdgX6.jpg]](http://i.imgur.com/ulVdgX6.jpg)
