main
side
curve
  1. In Memory of LAJ_FETT: Please share your remembrances and condolences HERE

IRS & Taxes: Unconstitutional?

Discussion in 'Archive: The Senate Floor' started by V8ER_H8ER, Nov 4, 2002.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. TheScarletBanner

    TheScarletBanner Jedi Padawan star 4

    Registered:
    Oct 19, 2002
    .and when you invoke government to do your bidding you invoke force...nothing more...nothing less!

    Welcome to the weekly meeting of Conspiracy and Anarchy Theorists Anonymous, one and all.

    once government gets in the middle...ANY GOVERNMENT...no matter how seemingly benign...you are invoking force.

    Government isn't synonymous with force.

    And when you employ force...you are diminishing freedom...one step at a time.

    The only true state of freedom is anarchism/pure communism, both of which are unattainable at the moment, and probably for quite a while yet.


    P.S. Ender, As I stated earlier, Americans already pay as much as Europeans..

    This is incorrect. A lot of European nations pay higher levels of tax.

    It's hidden in the costs of goods and services we purchase...

    How much do you pay for petrol? 30-40 cents? Something like that? The current price is around 60p, here in Britain. That's, oh... 90c. I wouldn't be complaining about stealth taxes.

    only to ratify the 16th Amendment to enslave us all!

    Here we go. Rabid Republican anti-tax rhetoric ahead. Try telling a slave that your taxes are anything like what they experience. Brace yourself for pain.

    Remeber: Fedral taxes were originally instituted to "punish the rich"

    Nothing of the sort. PPOR.

    P.S.Enforcer, You have to admit that getting the government from stealing a large portion of our daily income is a good place to start, especially for those families who can't afford health care right now?

    Now, this is priceless. If people paid less tax, people would have more money. Therefore, not only would prices go up, but the money you're spending on tax would no longer fund hospitals and medical care. Your logic is like a piece of Swiss cheese.

    EDIT: Britain is one of the highest-taxing nations. We have the NHS - free health care for all. While it isn't as efficient as it used to be, people can still expect good treatment in reasonable amounts of time. I think our system works just fine.

    Maybe employers would be able to afford more workers

    This, again, is wrong. If employers have more money, then the people they employ will demand more in wages. If everyone's suddenly getting rich through not getting taxes, don't expect the wage to stay the same.

    And people who are a little better off can afford to be more "charitible"?!

    If all the social programmes in this country were left to the mercy of charitable people, there would be a lot of dead and diseased people in no time at all.

    - TSB.
     
  2. Guinastasia

    Guinastasia Force Ghost star 6

    Registered:
    Jun 9, 2002
    Why is it that people shout and scream about spending one billion to feed the world...

    But cheer and approve of spending ten billion to blow the world up?

     
  3. AxtonTredway

    AxtonTredway Jedi Youngling star 2

    Registered:
    May 30, 2001
    Scarlet, Is this a debate or an exercise in sterile liberal conjecture? Complaints from the "have nots" are precisely why the "moral imperative" of federal taxation was originally employed in the U.S.

    As far as having the highest "logical ground" on the economic aspect of health care, your logic is not very "Darwinian" if logic is the point of argument. Funny how more people (everyone!)received affordable health care before federal taxation! If government stopped handing health care benefits out of workers' pockets it would be a LOT LESS EXPENSIVE. Any "taxes" should be handled on the state level.
    And there is historical precedence for shrinking taxes with the effect of increased employment. It was called the 1980's. Note:Wages never made a dent in inflation! I concede the part of prices going up...but at least the money stayed in the economy and was peoples' own money to spend...and last I heard Uncle Sam
    wasn't on vacation when this party took place!

    The cost of automobile fuel?
    You have a good point there. Cars in Europe are also much more fuel efficient and you don't have to drive 1500 miles to see your country from coast to coast.

    Oh, and my viewpoint could more accurately be depicted as much more Libertarian than Republican...and certainly not Anarchist. As far as defining government as an instrument of force, the only rebuttle I received from you was basically a "no, it isn't". As extreme as it may seem, a more moderate view is that once you relinquish a matter of personal sovereignty to government, you are much less likely to get it back!

    Guin,
    "Give a man a fish he eats for a day...Teach a man to fish and he eats for the rest of his life"....
     
  4. TheScarletBanner

    TheScarletBanner Jedi Padawan star 4

    Registered:
    Oct 19, 2002
    Scarlet, Is this a debate or an exercise in sterile liberal conjecture?

    *yawns* Hurry up and come up with something intelligent, or quit wasting my time.

    Complaints from the "have nots" are precisely why the "moral imperative" of federal taxation was employed.

    Actually, it was the "haves" that enforced taxation. They're the only ones in a position to do so. Don't complain about people who are forced into poverty wishing that the Government would do something about it. You would also, were you in there position (and don't give my any Mr Motivation BS, I'm not in the mood for it).

    As far as having the highest "logical ground" on the economic aspect of health care, your logic is not very "Darwinian" if logic is the point of argument.

    Darwinism and taxation have nothing to do with each other whatsoever.

    On the aspect of health care:
    Britain has the fourth largest economy in the world. It has a complete welfare state, including socialised health care, public transport, disability, immigrant and unemployed benefits. I'm not a proponent of social democratic Welfare State ideas, nor am I interested in the Third Way, but the Welfare State works. Simple. And it works because of taxation.

    Funny how more people (everyone!)received afordable health care before federal taxation!

    This is idiotic. Of course they did. However, if taxation was abolished, the price of health care would go up. Do you not understand that the more money people have = the more costly things are? This is wilful stupidity.

    If government stopped handing health care benefits out of workers' pockets it would be a LOT LESS EXPENSIVE.

    You sound like the leader of Rush Limbaugh's cheerleader squad. This is nonsense. Prices don't go down if people have more money. They go up. Simple economics.

    And there is historical precedence for shrinking taxes with the effect of increased employment. It was called the 1980's.

    Elaborate or rescind. If you refer to the New Right of Reagan/Thatcher, their deeds cost HUGE unemployment, because they sliced taxation in half and privatised everything but the President's underwear. You need to start quoting figures, instead of dogma.

    Note:Wages never made a dent in inflation!

    PPOR.

    I concede the part of prices going up...but

    But nothing. If prices go up in tandem money, no amount of tax-cutting will make everybody richer. It'll just end up with the upper crust getting richer, while those beneath the poverty line starve and die.

    and last I heard Uncle Sam
    wasn't on vacation when this party took place!


    Oh, great. Would you care to make sense, instead of spouting dogma?

    Cars in Europe are also much more fuel efficient

    The majority of our cars come from the exact same places yours do, though I know little about cars. Please be so kind as to PPOR, just to ease my heart.

    be depicted as much more Libertarian than Republican

    Libertarian's will never be elected because people don't want people in power who will take away that which they rely on. If I might descend for a moment into the same cowboy phrases you often do - you're ****in' in the wind.

    ...and certainly not Anarchist.

    You were giving yourself an embolism by ranting and raving about how evil the Government was. It sounded like anarchist rhetoric to me.

    As far as defining government as an instrument of force, the only rebuttle I received from you was basically a "no, it isn't".

    Well, it simply isn't. The Government isn't an instrument of force. It never has been. The military and the police, perhaps, but not the Government. I wish you could quit the evangelical anti-tax, anti-Government preaching for five minutes, in order to see how ridiculous you sound.

    - Scarlet.
     
  5. AxtonTredway

    AxtonTredway Jedi Youngling star 2

    Registered:
    May 30, 2001
    Scarlet,
    I was referring to "Social Darwinism"...one of those esoteric concepts in the study of sociology-of which taxation is a big part of the social ecosystem...I'll get back to you on the rest..you are just to quick for me, besides, I have to go to work now to pay for all those social programs! I figure the rest of the calendar year will all go towards taxes! You see,if they keep me working like the slave that I am I don't have as much time to spend arguing the dubious merits of taxation! :)
     
  6. Guinastasia

    Guinastasia Force Ghost star 6

    Registered:
    Jun 9, 2002
    Well, if you blow the guy up you don't need to teach him or feed him. That's my whole point.

    ;)

    All I'm saying is, why do people complain about taxes for things that benefit others, but don't about military overspending?

    Face it-taxes are a necessity. Or, as Cecil Adams said:

    "No income tax at all? Fine. When the guys in the military come looking for their pay, we'll tell them to see you."

    http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a5_139.html

    And of course, http://www.straightdope.com/columns/001201.html

    Our tax rates compared to the rest of the world.

     
  7. AxtonTredway

    AxtonTredway Jedi Youngling star 2

    Registered:
    May 30, 2001
    Guin,
    Tell Cecil Adams to fire the military. We wouldn't need a military if aggressors had to overcome 50 independent state militias!...Besides, there hasn't been a war worth American Blood since The War of 1812!...But I digress from the central issue....
    As far as taxes being necessary for "humanitarian purposes" is concerned...It may sound harsh but...NOT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT'S JOB...not any AMERICAN CONSTITUTIONAL federal government, anyway.
     
  8. TheScarletBanner

    TheScarletBanner Jedi Padawan star 4

    Registered:
    Oct 19, 2002
    NOT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENTS JOB

    Obviously most people think it is, as they keep electing parties that take care of social welfare. Funny that, isn't it?

    Your rabid ideas hold no sway in modern politics.

    - Scarlet.
     
  9. Obi-Zahn Kenobi

    Obi-Zahn Kenobi Force Ghost star 7

    Registered:
    Aug 23, 1999
    It is not Uncle Sam's job.

    Congress's dutuies:

    Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

    To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

    To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;

    To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;

    To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;

    To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;

    To establish post offices and post roads;

    To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;

    To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;

    To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;

    To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;

    To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;

    To provide and maintain a navy;

    To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;

    To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

    To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

    To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;--And

    To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.


    Those are the duties of the legislative branch.

    I see nothing about studying chicken poop or providing helthcare and education for the unwashed masses.

    The jobs of the states:

    Section 2. The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.

    A person charged in any state with treason, felony, or other crime, who shall flee from justice, and be found in another state, shall on demand of the executive authority of the state from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the state having jurisdiction of the crime.

    No person held to service or labor in one state, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due.

    The above line is no longer valid due to the slavery amendment.

    It leaves pretty much a blank check for the states. However, the federal government's job is pretty clear.

    Social Security, the New Deal,
    universal healthcare, and many other federal programs are unconstitutional.

    There is no such thing as a conservative.

    There are constitutional liberals(Republicans) and constitutional ultra-liberals(Democrats). The whole country is on the path to destruction
     
  10. Wylding

    Wylding Jedi Grand Master star 5

    Registered:
    Aug 13, 2000
    Long live liberty.
     
  11. AxtonTredway

    AxtonTredway Jedi Youngling star 2

    Registered:
    May 30, 2001
    "Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death!"
    -Patrick Henry
     
  12. V8ER_H8ER

    V8ER_H8ER Jedi Grand Master star 4

    Registered:
    Nov 19, 1998
    Well said.

    We revolted against Europe over 200 years ago, but slowly we are turning ourselves back and growing more socialist everyday.
     
  13. SirLancelot

    SirLancelot Jedi Padawan star 4

    Registered:
    Jun 10, 2002
    Why is it that people shout and scream about spending one billion to feed the world...

    But cheer and approve of spending ten billion to blow the world up?


    We already spend billioms to feed the world. Africa ows us billions and has no intention of ever paying it back. we give plenty of money away to these countries, but liberals have this concept that if we throw money at them without looking at where it goes then they will pull themselves out. well, most of the time owr money gets no further then the back pockets of a dictator or 'elected' leader. money that is ment to buy food for starving people, educate them, and build infrastructure is actually going into guns for druged up militia to fight age old tribal wars.

    Question: why does america give money to dead beat countries where it could much better spent on owr own problems?
     
  14. TripleB

    TripleB Jedi Padawan star 4

    Registered:
    Oct 28, 2000
    A lot of good things did come out of the New Deal. I won't deny that.

    But The Great Society was a disaster of cataclysmic proportions, responsible for more bad things in the last 35 years then anything else ever could have been.
     
  15. TheScarletBanner

    TheScarletBanner Jedi Padawan star 4

    Registered:
    Oct 19, 2002
    We revolted against Europe over 200 years ago, but slowly we are turning ourselves back and growing more socialist everyday.


    Back? Back? Hah! You turned from the most powerful capitalist country in the world, aristocracy and a monarchy.

    You turned into a highly socialistic country that believed in social mobility, classlessness and freedom.

    Now you're losing it. You're becoming aristocratic. You're losing social mobility. You're losing classlessness and freedom.

    Why? Because of people who don't see that it was a socialistic system upon which they were founded, and which they are losing. Not the other way around.

    - Scarlet.
     
  16. Guinastasia

    Guinastasia Force Ghost star 6

    Registered:
    Jun 9, 2002
    No war since 1812? H'uh? Um, yeah, you keep telling yourself that.

    Isolationism is not a smart idea, okay.

    Look, I'm not saying we have to give everyone all this money, but for crying out loud, you can't have a viable economy if half the population is starving. What we need to survive is a strong middle class.

    All I'm saying is, however, why do we scream about social spending and such, instead of complaining about waste for military, pork barrel projects, and stupid crap.

    And no, state governments aren't much better. Corporate welfare in the form of new stadiums for sports teams isn't my idea of taxpayer responsibility.

    Face it-that was then-this is now. Life is vastly different from how it was during the American Revolution. And the revolution was NOT about taxes-it was about being taxed without allowing the colonies to have their own reps in Parliament. That's a big difference.

    I don't like seeing my tax dollars fund things like the School of the Americas. Or the overthrow of governments that don't suit big corporations in other countries.

     
  17. SirLancelot

    SirLancelot Jedi Padawan star 4

    Registered:
    Jun 10, 2002
    you can't have a viable economy if half the population is starving

    you cant? most countries donr care to feed themselves, all they want are more guns to fight their pointless old wars that will never end.

    instead of complaining about waste for military

    i would agree that there is alot of waste in the military, but it is also a big part of our economy. and becuase of the military their are millions of jobs pertaining to defense.

    What we need to survive is a strong middle class

    and how can we have a stong middle class if we tax then so much thatthey cant spend any money on themsleves or their future?
     
  18. TheScarletBanner

    TheScarletBanner Jedi Padawan star 4

    Registered:
    Oct 19, 2002
    you cant?

    No, you can't. An economy which can not support the population is no economy at all.

    most countries donr care to feed themselves,

    Would you care to give an example?

    all they want are more guns to fight their pointless old wars that will never end.

    Again, can you provide an example? And can you also please inform us why this has ANYTHING to do with the topic in hand?

    instead of complaining about waste for military

    Well, there is a lot of waste. There is absolutely no need for such an enormous military, especially not when numbers of Americans are living in poverty. I'm sure they'd prefer food than a few thousand more tanks.

    i would agree that there is alot of waste in the military, but it is also a big part of our economy.

    How is this? Explain?

    and becuase of the military their are millions of jobs pertaining to defense.

    We're not talking about the abolition of the military here.

    and how can we have a stong middle class if we tax then so much thatthey cant spend any money on themsleves or their future?

    This is a ridiculous, unsubstantiated, overly-emotional claim. The middle class in America (as far as it stretches to white-collar workers) is absolutely huge. Unless you define it by Marxist standards, it's by FAR the largest class in the country (if you define it by Marxist standards, the numbers are very different, but that is an entirely different matter). And obviously the tax isn't that stifling, as many people have a great quality of life.

    - Scarlet.
     
  19. SirLancelot

    SirLancelot Jedi Padawan star 4

    Registered:
    Jun 10, 2002
    ever heard of Somalia?
     
  20. TheScarletBanner

    TheScarletBanner Jedi Padawan star 4

    Registered:
    Oct 19, 2002
    ever heard of Somalia?

    Yes, I have. Care to relate this to the topic in hand?

    - Scarlet.
     
  21. SirLancelot

    SirLancelot Jedi Padawan star 4

    Registered:
    Jun 10, 2002
    Yes, I have. Care to relate this to the topic in hand?

    sure, remeber in the early 90s when we and the UN tried to feed that starving nation? rather then help themselves they had much rather steal the food and starve everyone else because of a tribal fued that goes back scince the begingin of time. sure, rather then builkd a strong country with the help of the US and UN they had much rather buy guns and drugs and kill the other poor fool just trying to survive. people complain about the military, but if we decided to fix our own problems first then there wouldent be as much to complain about.
     
  22. Fire_Ice_Death

    Fire_Ice_Death Force Ghost star 7

    Registered:
    Feb 15, 2001
    Back? Back? Hah! You turned from the most powerful capitalist country in the world, aristocracy and a monarchy.


    Aristocratic you had me at. But a monarchy? Get real. Do you even know the definition of a monarchy? If you do then you've obviously made an error. If not, it just proves you're ignorant.
     
  23. POLUNIS

    POLUNIS Jedi Youngling star 2

    Registered:
    Apr 3, 2002
    America at that time was more aristocratic than England, I would wager. Colonists, in general, lived quite well.
     
  24. Guinastasia

    Guinastasia Force Ghost star 6

    Registered:
    Jun 9, 2002
    Monarchy? I do not think that word means what you think it means.

    You can have a democratic republican government and still have a monarchy, as is evidenced in quite a few European countries today, and even in the past.


    Actually, if you ask me, I'm for a mildly socialist (think Canada or some of your Scandinavian countries) democratic republic, with a constitutional monarch, such as in Serbia prior to the 1930s.

     
  25. Fire_Ice_Death

    Fire_Ice_Death Force Ghost star 7

    Registered:
    Feb 15, 2001

    Merriam webster


    Main Entry: mon·ar·chy
    Pronunciation: 'mä-n&r-kE also -"när-
    Function: noun
    Inflected Form(s): plural -chies
    Date: 14th century
    1 : undivided rule or absolute sovereignty by a single person
    2 : a nation or state having a monarchical government
    3 : a government having an hereditary chief of state with life tenure and powers varying from nominal to absolute



    *sigh* I hate resorting to this, but we have no leader like that. Unless you're talking about our supreme court. And even then it doesn't even come close to a monarchy.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.