Does no income tax also mean no tax on interest earned in a savings account?

[RCA]

Taxing interest seems just as unconsitutional as taxing income because you are lending your money to the bank in exchange for a realized profit.

[Danke]

Taxing interest seems just as unconsitutional as taxing income because you are lending your money to the bank in exchange for a realized profit.

Neither are unconstitutional.

Interest from a Federal institution like a bank is "income." And hence, taxable. You could loan it to a private party that paid interest and then have no income.

You are not forced to deposit you money in the bank for interest. You can also open up a non-interest bearing account.

[RCA]

Neither are unconstitutional.

Interest from a Federal institution like a bank is "income." And hence, taxable. You could loan it to a private party that paid interest and then have no income.

You are not forced to deposit you money in the bank for interest. You can also open up a non-interest bearing account.

Before the 16th Amendment an income tax was unconstitutional. Do I really have to tell another Ron Paul supporter that I was referring to the Constitution BEFORE the 16th Amendment?

[eckstein88]

Before the 16th Amendment an income tax was unconstitutional. Do I really have to tell another Ron Paul supporter that I was referring to the Constitution BEFORE the 16th Amendment?

This is a pretty weak argument, and I say that as someone who is very much against the 16th amendment. This comes up in debates I have with people all the time. Their arguement, which I happen to agree with is that:

"The 16th amendment is a part of the constitution, and was added to the constitution constitutionally (saying it wasn't doesn't really and turns you into the "conspiracy theory nut" of the conversation)."

[RCA]

This is a pretty weak argument, and I say that as someone who is very much against the 16th amendment. This comes up in debates I have with people all the time. Their arguement, which I happen to agree with is that:

"The 16th amendment is a part of the constitution, and was added to the constitution constitutionally (saying it wasn't doesn't really and turns you into the "conspiracy theory nut" of the conversation)."

Actually, I thought that the 16th Amendment was ratified unconstitutionally no? I don't recall the exact claim, but there was an issue about it not being ratified correctly. All because Bush is our President doesn't mean he became President constitutionally.

[Danke]

Before the 16th Amendment an income tax was unconstitutional. Do I really have to tell another Ron Paul supporter that I was referring to the Constitution BEFORE the 16th Amendment?


In the OP, you didn't mention anything about pre/post 16th Amendment. But you surely just showed your ignorance in what you just posted as there being no income tax prior to the 16th Amendment.

[Kludge]

The constitution is fundamentally flawed. I don't understand why so many people resolve that it's the law of the land.

[Danke]

The constitution is fundamentally flawed. I don't understand why so many people resolve that it's the law of the land.

O.K. What is the "law of the land."

[Kludge]

O.K. What is the "law of the land."

Depends which independent state you live in.

[Danke]

Depends which independent state you live in.

Oh really? So if a State I live in were to not recognize a Federal Income Tax, I would not be liable for it?

[Kludge]

Oh really? So if a State I live in were to not recognize a Federal Income Tax, I would not be liable for it?

That SHOULD be true. If a state had an irreconcilable difference with The State (Income tax in this case), it used to be allowed to secede. Abraham Lincoln defeated states' rights to secede through the civil war. I believe it was Judge Andrew Napolitano who proclaimed him to be "The Great Perverter of the Constitution".

[Danke]

That SHOULD be true. If a state had an irreconcilable difference with The State (Income tax in this case), it used to be allowed to secede. Abraham Lincoln defeated states' rights to secede through the civil war. I believe it was Judge Andrew Napolitano who proclaimed him to be "The Great Perverter of the Constitution".

Oh we are discussing theory.


O.K. let's skip that. Before the Civil War. Did the Federal government have any say over regulating commerce between States, or could my particular State that I Live in have the ultimate say, as it would determine "the law (of the land)."

[Kludge]

Oh we are discussing theory.


O.K. let's skip that. Before the Civil War. Did the Federal government have any say over regulating commerce between States, or could my particular State that I Live in have the ultimate say, as it would determine "the law (of the land)."

It had the right to secede if it didn't feel the federal government was representing it's best interest.

[Danke]

If a state had an irreconcilable difference with The State (Income tax in this case), it used to be allowed to secede. A\

So even if they choose not to secede, the "law of the law" is still not found in the Constitution by your previous post.

[Danke]

It had the right to secede if it didn't feel the federal government was representing it's best interest.

So before the civil war, the Constitution was the Law of the Land, but not now 'cause States can't secede?

[Kludge]

So before the civil war, the Constitution was the Law of the Land, but not now 'cause States can't secede?

It is and was the "law of the land". But the land was determined by which states remained in / joined the Union. Since Abraham Lincoln started the Civil War, states are now bound to the Union, and with it, the Constitution. This was not the original intention. States were to be allowed to reject the Constitution by rejecting the Union which declares the Constitution law.

[Danke]

It is and was the "law of the land". But the land was determined by which states remained in / joined the Union. Since Abraham Lincoln started the Civil War, states are now bound to the Union, and with it, the Constitution. This was not the original intention. States were to be allowed to reject the Constitution by rejecting the Union which declares the Constitution law.



I don't understand why so many people resolve that it's the law of the land.



It is and was the "law of the land".

You should work for the McCain campaign. Nice back peddling.

[Kludge]

You should work for the McCain campaign. Nice back peddling.

Oh please... It was never intended to work the way it has been perverted in to. States were to be allowed to break away from the Union.

I'll clarify. "The law of the land" (the Constitution) is the law of the Union, not of the 50 states.

[DriftWood]

Taxing interest seems just as unconsitutional as taxing income because you are lending your money to the bank in exchange for a realized profit.

Yeah, I think the capital gains tax is as bad as, probably worse than, the income tax. The capital gains tax means that if you put your dollars into real money, like gold to hedge against inflation, then when the dollar looses value against this real money, the govt treat it like you have made a profit and they tax you for it. The capital gains tax is basically a tax on capitalism, people and companies end up avoid it by in some sense avoiding to make profits.

Cheers

[mrsat_98]

The Louisiana Supreme Court stated in City of New Orleans vs Scramuzza "we do not beleive these people that adopted the constitution understand that a tax on their wages salaries tips and comissions is NOT an income tax".

Who doesn't get it ?