• Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    Yesterday, 10:38 AM
    About as much as your posts #10 and 11. As you have one for ignoring the law.
    15 replies | 402 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    11-22-2017, 10:00 AM
    You are making the unsupported assumption that the Framers intended to adopt the British definition of a direct tax into the Constitution. No argument about wealth taxes or poll taxes -- they are both direct taxes, as the former is a tax on the ownership of property and the latter is a capitation. But we've already addressed the error in construing Smith as saying that an income tax is a capitation. See http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?443685-Senator-Cruz-keep-income-tax-lower-top-rates Fine. An income tax is none of these, so by Hamilton's definition it is an indirect tax. This was pointed out by SCOTUS in the Springer case, in which it upheld the Civil War income tax against the claim that it was an unapportioned direct tax:
    15 replies | 402 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    11-22-2017, 08:00 AM
    There was no such suggestion. Note the quotation marks around the statement, which mean that you were quoting someone else. Had the words been your own there would have been no quotation marks. There is no specific language granting Congress the power to tax anything in particular, so by your reasoning it had no authority to enact the whiskey and carriage taxes in 1791 and 1794, respectively, since whiskey and carriages aren't mentioned in the Constitution. The Framers knew how to prohibit Congress from taxing something, as they specified with respect to exports. Incomes weren't included in the ban. I suggest you read it and see if you can discover any language that even remotely suggests that the taxing power in I.8.1 didn't extend to incomes.
    15 replies | 402 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    11-21-2017, 08:10 AM
    What ignorant nonsense. There's nothing in the original Constitution forbidding income taxation. To the contrary, it banned the taxation of only one thing: exports. SCOTUS has also repeatedly confirmed that the only direct taxes under the Constitution requiring apportionment are capitations and taxes on the mere ownership of property. The income tax is neither of these. Because the Court felt that a stock dividend wasn't income in the first place.
    15 replies | 402 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    11-15-2017, 02:22 PM
    He likes to portray himself as a law and order, pro-Constitution type, but he's anything but. His escapades that caused him to be twice removed as Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court demonstrate that he sees himself as above the law, and his claim that a Muslim shouldn't be allowed to serve in Congress (see http://www.wnd.com/2006/12/39271/) demonstrates that he has contempt for the Constitution (see clause 3 of Article VI).
    758 replies | 15564 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    11-04-2017, 10:21 AM
    Only a third of those who pay no income tax but who pay payroll tax receive enough EIC to offset their payroll tax. The other two-thirds either don't get EIC or have a net payroll tax outlay. See http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxvox/closer-look-those-who-pay-no-income-or-payroll-taxes Made up? When you start demonizing people who don't pay income tax as "parasitic, lazy and unproductive, government cheese eaters", what's made up?
    104 replies | 1909 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    11-03-2017, 03:23 PM
    Read the statistic again: 60% of the 45% pay payroll taxes. If they're paying payroll taxes, then by definition they're employed. I don't. Nor do I demonize someone who works hard for 50 years, paying payroll taxes as he or she went along, and then retires and collects Social Security. You'd doubtless prefer to repeal the entire Social Security system and tell those who were collecting it, "Too bad, suckers! You fell for a Ponzi Scheme that we're ending right now. You want to get a monthly check? Go to work -- and it doesn't matter that you're 85. Oh, and by the way, until you do get a job you can't vote any more."
    104 replies | 1909 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    11-03-2017, 08:33 AM
    But 60% of those 45% pay payroll taxes (FICA and Medicare taxes). Are you not OK with them getting the vote? It's estimated that 72% of all households pay either income tax, payroll tax, or both. Of the remaining 18% that pay neither tax more than half are retirees living on Social Security and have too little other income to owe income tax. The rest have no jobs and not much income. So should we disenfranchise them? http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxvox/most-americans-pay-more-payroll-tax-income-tax
    104 replies | 1909 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    11-03-2017, 06:49 AM
    The point is that it's incorrect to say that the founders were anarchists, given that they were in favor of maintaining strong governments at the State level. Perhaps you forgot the following part of the Declaration of Independence:
    47 replies | 1114 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    11-02-2017, 01:43 PM
    It wasn't eliminated. In addition, the annual deductibility cap on cash contributions to public charities is raised from 50% of adjusted gross income to 60%. For those who suffer from insomnia, here's the full text of the bill: http://www.cnn.com/2017/11/02/politics/tax-plan-republicans/index.html
    26 replies | 342 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    11-02-2017, 06:44 AM
    A league of what? Local governments, of course. The State of Virginia, for example, was hardly some kind of anarchic commune.
    47 replies | 1114 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    10-30-2017, 10:26 AM
    FICA and the Medicare tax aren't income taxes, but are employment taxes governed by a different subtitle. Unlike income taxes they don't include any deductions and aren't refundable.
    64 replies | 1412 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    10-26-2017, 08:45 AM
    It was popular enough to get the 16th Amendment ratified.
    53 replies | 1325 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    10-25-2017, 03:00 PM
    Indeed, because tariffs are added to the price of items and are passed on to the consumer. It was the view that consumption taxes like tariffs burdened the poor much more than the rich that was the impetus for the 1894 income tax.
    53 replies | 1325 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    10-25-2017, 02:56 PM
    You would say the same thing about a tax on wages ("penalized for working too hard"), alimony ("penalized for marrying a rich spouse"), lottery winnings ("penalized for being lucky"), interest ("penalized for saving"). Why not just come out and say you're against all income taxes?
    53 replies | 1325 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    10-25-2017, 12:06 PM
    No, what's taxed is the appreciation. If you buy stock for $100 with after-tax dollars and later sell it for $500, only the $400 gain is taxed.
    53 replies | 1325 view(s)
No More Results
About Sonny Tufts

Basic Information

Profile Sidebar Configuration

Profile Sidebar Configuration

Activist Reputation (Self-Rated):
1

Signature


We have long had death and taxes as the two standards of inevitability. But there are those who believe that death is the preferable of the two. "At least," as one man said, "there's one advantage about death; it doesn't get worse every time Congress meets."
Erwin N. Griswold

Taxes: Of life's two certainties, the only one for which you can get an automatic extension.
Anonymous

Statistics


Total Posts
Total Posts
1,331
Posts Per Day
0.65
General Information
Last Activity
Yesterday 10:38 AM
Join Date
04-25-2012
Referrals
0

08-03-2017

  • 10:57 AM - Hidden

12-15-2016


No results to display...
Page 1 of 17 12311 ... LastLast

11-23-2017


11-22-2017


11-21-2017


11-07-2017


11-06-2017


11-05-2017


11-03-2017


11-02-2017


10-30-2017


10-25-2017


10-23-2017


10-20-2017



Page 1 of 17 12311 ... LastLast