Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 53

Thread: Taxes Are Unconstitutional

  1. #1

    Taxes Are Unconstitutional

    The Supreme Court recently ruled that compelled communication (including spending) is unconstitutional. They were specifically referring to compulsory union dues, but their logic inherently applies to all compulsory payments.



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2
    Quote Originally Posted by Xerographica View Post
    The Supreme Court recently ruled that compelled communication (including spending) is unconstitutional. They were specifically referring to compulsory union dues, but their logic inherently applies to all compulsory payments.
    Some taxes are specifically authorized in the Constitution.

    Government propaganda is forced speech and therefore unconstitutional.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  4. #3
    Quote Originally Posted by Xerographica View Post
    The Supreme Court recently ruled that compelled communication (including spending) is unconstitutional. They were specifically referring to compulsory union dues, but their logic inherently applies to all compulsory payments.
    So if I buy something from you, I cannot be compelled to pay for it.
    Donald Trump: 'What you're seeing and what you're reading is not what's happening'

    "Truth isn't truth"- Rudy Giuliani

    "China has total respect for Donald Trump and for Donald Trump's very, very large brain," - Donald Trump.

    I am Zippy and I approve of this post. But you don't have to.

  5. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    So if I buy something from you, I cannot be compelled to pay for it.

    That would be voluntary. Government demands, not a voluntary agreement as far as I can see.
    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    Ron Paul know some weird people...



    Quiz: Test Your "Income" Tax IQ!


    Short Income Tax Video

    The Income Tax Is An Excise, And Excise Taxes Are Privilege Taxes

    The Federalist Papers, No. 15:

    Except as to the rule of appointment, the United States have an indefinite discretion to make requisitions for men and money; but they have no authority to raise either by regulations extending to the individual citizens of America.

  6. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by Danke View Post
    That would be voluntary. Government demands, not a voluntary agreement as far as I can see.
    Yep, anyone with half a brain knows the difference between the two.

  7. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    So if I buy something from you, I cannot be compelled to pay for it.
    You would end up with a credit score more in red than your reputation.

  8. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by Xerographica View Post
    The Supreme Court recently ruled that compelled communication (including spending) is unconstitutional. They were specifically referring to compulsory union dues, but their logic inherently applies to all compulsory payments.
    The court opines, they do not rule.
    A major reason the constitution replaced the Articles is federal taxation on the states. Your title is worded poorly since the constitution specifically itemizes taxation as a fabric of the constitution. May I ask......what are you trying to ask or say?

  9. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Some taxes are specifically authorized in the Constitution.
    Exactly



  10. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  11. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by TommyJeff View Post
    The court opines, they do not rule.
    A major reason the constitution replaced the Articles is federal taxation on the states. Your title is worded poorly since the constitution specifically itemizes taxation as a fabric of the constitution. May I ask......what are you trying to ask or say?
    Did you read what I linked to?

  12. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by Xerographica View Post
    Did you read what I linked to?
    Which part of your link explains your title for this post.....as I said, it’s poorly worded, but if you don’t agree, cut/paste the necessary information from your link

  13. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by timosman View Post
    You would end up with a credit score more in red than your reputation.
    That would be quite a feat. Can Zippy microwave a burrito so hot, that he himself cannot eat it?
    "He's talkin' to his gut like it's a person!!" -me
    "dumpster diving isn't professional." - angelatc


    "Each of us must choose which course of action we should take: education, conventional political action, or even peaceful civil disobedience to bring about necessary changes. But let it not be said that we did nothing." - Ron Paul

    "Paul said "the wave of the future" is a coalition of anti-authoritarian progressive Democrats and libertarian Republicans in Congress opposed to domestic surveillance, opposed to starting new wars and in favor of ending the so-called War on Drugs."

  14. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by TommyJeff View Post
    Which part of your link explains your title for this post.....as I said, it’s poorly worded, but if you don’t agree, cut/paste the necessary information from your link
    Honestly, I'm not sure what's going on here...

    1. Did you click the link? If so...
    2. Do you try and read the post? If so....
    3. Was there something you didn't understand? If so...
    4. What, exactly, did you not understand?

    I'm not trying to be rude. The post that I linked you to is the story of modern economics. If there's a part of it that you don't understand, then you're not going to appreciate the significance of the Supreme Court's ruling. If you don't understand any of the story of modern economics... then let me know. Let us know.

  15. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Some taxes are specifically authorized in the Constitution.

    Government propaganda is forced speech and therefore unconstitutional.
    "Taxes" is pretty broad beyond saying that they must be uniform for all states (though actually it says the Congress can lay Taxes AND Duties And Imposts AND Excise taxes (note the coma between each) and that only "Duties, Imposts, and Excises" should be uniform from state to state.

    Article I, Section 8, Clause 1: The Congress shall have Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.
    Donald Trump: 'What you're seeing and what you're reading is not what's happening'

    "Truth isn't truth"- Rudy Giuliani

    "China has total respect for Donald Trump and for Donald Trump's very, very large brain," - Donald Trump.

    I am Zippy and I approve of this post. But you don't have to.

  16. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    "Taxes" is pretty broad beyond saying that they must be uniform for all states (though actually it says the Congress can lay Taxes AND Duties And Imposts AND Excise taxes (note the coma between each) and that only "Duties, Imposts, and Excises" should be uniform from state to state.
    Thank you for your informative contribution to the conversation.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  17. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by dannno View Post
    That would be quite a feat. Can Zippy microwave a burrito so hot, that he himself cannot eat it?
    That is a question appropriately asked about the devil............................................. ....................It works for zippy too.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  18. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    That is a question appropriately asked about the devil............................................. ....................It works for zippy too.
    Well, actually Jesus..

    "He's talkin' to his gut like it's a person!!" -me
    "dumpster diving isn't professional." - angelatc


    "Each of us must choose which course of action we should take: education, conventional political action, or even peaceful civil disobedience to bring about necessary changes. But let it not be said that we did nothing." - Ron Paul

    "Paul said "the wave of the future" is a coalition of anti-authoritarian progressive Democrats and libertarian Republicans in Congress opposed to domestic surveillance, opposed to starting new wars and in favor of ending the so-called War on Drugs."



  19. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  20. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by Xerographica View Post
    Honestly, I'm not sure what's going on here...

    1. Did you click the link? If so...
    2. Do you try and read the post? If so....
    3. Was there something you didn't understand? If so...
    4. What, exactly, did you not understand?

    I'm not trying to be rude. The post that I linked you to is the story of modern economics. If there's a part of it that you don't understand, then you're not going to appreciate the significance of the Supreme Court's ruling. If you don't understand any of the story of modern economics... then let me know. Let us know.

    Not trying to be rude, but for the second time, the Supreme Court doesn’t rule, only king’s rule.

  21. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by TommyJeff View Post
    Not trying to be rude, but for the second time, the Supreme Court doesn’t rule, only king’s rule.
    The Supreme Court decided that compulsory union dues are unconstitutional because they violate the first amendment. What's the economic difference between compulsory union dues and compulsory taxes? There is absolutely no economic difference. The point of compulsory payments is to solve the free-rider problem but the Supreme Court decided that free-riding is a smaller problem than forced-riding. This can't only be true for some compulsory payments... it must be true for them all... because that's how economics works.

    Personally I don't know if forced-riding is truly a bigger problem than free-riding. I do know that both are big problems. From my perspective, the best solution is for payments to remain compulsory, but for people to have the freedom to "earmark" them. For unions this means that, rather than conservatives funding liberal causes, they could simply earmark their dues to a new microwave for the employee breakroom. For the government it means that, rather than pacifists funding war, they could earmark their taxes to public education or healthcare. Earmarking would essentially transform the government and unions into markets.

    Unfortunately, the Supreme Court is only slightly more knowledgeable about economics than you are. Maybe they might know that, in this context, if I refer to James Buchanan I'm not referring to the president, I'm referring to the Nobel pragmatarian economist. But it's seriously doubtful that they read his paper about the economics of earmarking.

    It shouldn't be a surprise that governments aren't lining up to test the idea of giving taxpayers the freedom to earmark their taxes. But there's more than one way to skin a cat.

    Last year the libertarian party (LP) gave donors the freedom to use their donations to help rank potential convention themes...

    $6,327.00 — I’m That Libertarian!
    $5,200.00 — Building Bridges, Not Walls
    $1,620.00 — Pro Choice on Everything
    $1,377.77 — Empowering the Individual
    $395.00 — The Power of Principle
    $150.00 — Future of Freedom
    $135.00 — Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness
    $105.00 — Rise of the Libertarians
    $75.00 — Free Lives Matter
    $42.00 — Be Me, Be Free
    $17.76 — Make Taxation Theft Again
    $15.42 — Taxation is Theft
    $15.00 — Jazzed About Liberty
    $15.00 — All of Your Freedoms, All of the Time
    $5.00 — Am I Being Detained!
    $5.00 — Liberty Here and Now

    Helping to rank the themes was essentially a perk of donating to the LP. The more money that somebody donated, the more influence that they had on the rankings. The market was essentially used to prioritize the themes.

    I've been experimenting with this same system over at NationStates...

    Books ranked by donation voting (DV)
    Political ideologies ranked by DV

    The liberals have been DV'ing for stupid things to try and make it appear that democracy is better than the market.

  22. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by Xerographica View Post
    The Supreme Court decided that compulsory union dues are unconstitutional because they violate the first amendment.
    The supreme court’s opinion is not the law of the land, the constitution is the law of the land. 5 people in black robes do not have the authority to change the constitution. The constitution specifically includes taxes in their opening article .... which is the reason your title is so confusing. It’s not up for debate, the constitution specifically site’s taxation and 5 citizens in robes cannot change that.


    Quote Originally Posted by Xerographica View Post

    Unfortunately, the Supreme Court is only slightly more knowledgeable about economics than you are.
    you hand no idea about the economic knowledge of any of us.....you should consider posting your question in the economic forum if you wanted to debate the economics of taxation. But this is the constitution forum and you haven’t offered any evidence to prove the constitution magically omits the taxation language which is specifically included in black and white.



    Quote Originally Posted by Xerographica View Post

    The liberals have been DV'ing for stupid things to try and make it appear that democracy is better than the market.
    i will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you weren’t suggesting the United States government is a democracy.....but if that is what you’re saying here, it’s not correct.
    Last edited by TommyJeff; 07-13-2018 at 01:52 PM.

  23. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by TommyJeff View Post
    The supreme court’s opinion is not the law of the land, the constitution is the law of the land. 5 people in black robes do not have the authority to change the constitution. The constitution specifically includes taxes in their opening article .... which is the reason your title is so confusing. It’s not up for debate, the constitution specifically site’s taxation and 5 citizens in robes cannot change that.
    Yep.

    The Congress shall have Power to lay and collect Taxes
    Donald Trump: 'What you're seeing and what you're reading is not what's happening'

    "Truth isn't truth"- Rudy Giuliani

    "China has total respect for Donald Trump and for Donald Trump's very, very large brain," - Donald Trump.

    I am Zippy and I approve of this post. But you don't have to.

  24. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by TommyJeff View Post
    The supreme court’s opinion is not the law of the land, the constitution is the law of the land. 5 people in black robes do not have the authority to change the constitution. The constitution specifically includes taxes in their opening article .... which is the reason your title is so confusing. It’s not up for debate, the constitution specifically site’s taxation and 5 citizens in robes cannot change that.
    The constitution was amended to include protection for speech. According to the 5 citizens in robes...

    1. Spending is a form of speech
    2. Speech cannot be compelled

    Therefore, the first amendment logically overrides what the constitution says about taxation.

    Quote Originally Posted by TommyJeff View Post
    i will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you weren’t suggesting the United States government is a democracy.....but if that is what you’re saying here, it’s not correct.
    Voting is used to rank politicians. My hypothesis is that voting elevates trash while spending elevates treasure. I think this hypothesis is well-supported by the top-ranked politicians and the top-ranked videos on Youtube.

  25. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by Xerographica View Post
    The constitution was amended to include protection for speech. According to the 5 citizens in robes...

    1. Spending is a form of speech
    2. Speech cannot be compelled

    Therefore, the first amendment logically overrides what the constitution says about taxation.
    Not all spending is speech, only spending on speech, even if all spending was speech the 16th Amendment amends the 1st and authorizes taxes.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  26. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by Xerographica View Post
    The constitution was amended to include protection for speech. According to the 5 citizens in robes...
    Please tell me you’re joking.

    You cannot belive the supreme court created the bill of rights, can you?

    im hoping I misread this part so please clear it up before I respond

  27. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Not all spending is speech, only spending on speech, even if all spending was speech the 16th Amendment amends the 1st and authorizes taxes.
    What do you mean that spending is only sometimes speech? The issue here is communication (the transmission of information). Spending is always communication, but not all communication is spending.

    The 16 amendment overrides the 1st? So the constitution says...

    Taxes are cool.

    Naw, compulsory communication is never cool.

    Actually, compulsory communication is only cool for taxes.
    What happens if it's decided that taxation isn't an exception to the rule?

    Taxes are cool.

    Naw, compulsory communication is never cool.

    Actually, compulsory communication is only cool for taxes.

    Nope, there aren't any exceptions to the rule.
    The Supreme Court decided that forced-riding is a bigger problem than free-riding. Do you think that this is true for union dues but not taxes?

    Free-riding either is, or isn't, a problem that justifies compulsory communication. Which is it?



  28. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  29. #25
    Quote Originally Posted by TommyJeff View Post
    Please tell me you’re joking.

    You cannot belive the supreme court created the bill of rights, can you?
    Where did I say that the bill of rights was created by the supreme court? The issue is their interpretation of the first amendment.

  30. #26
    Quote Originally Posted by Xerographica View Post
    What do you mean that spending is only sometimes speech? The issue here is communication (the transmission of information). Spending is always communication, but not all communication is spending.
    If the government doesn't issue any propaganda then 0% of its spending is speech and 0% of my taxes are for speech.

    Quote Originally Posted by Xerographica View Post
    The 16 amendment overrides the 1st? So the constitution says...

    Taxes are cool.

    Naw, compulsory communication is never cool.

    Actually, compulsory communication is only cool for taxes.
    That isn't what it says since not all taxes and spending are speech.

    Quote Originally Posted by Xerographica View Post
    What happens if it's decided that taxation isn't an exception to the rule?

    Taxes are cool.

    Naw, compulsory communication is never cool.

    Actually, compulsory communication is only cool for taxes.

    Nope, there aren't any exceptions to the rule.
    The court can't overrule the constitution so even if all taxes and spending were speech the court can't say there are no exceptions.


    Quote Originally Posted by Xerographica View Post
    The Supreme Court decided that forced-riding is a bigger problem than free-riding. Do you think that this is true for union dues but not taxes?

    Free-riding either is, or isn't, a problem that justifies compulsory communication. Which is it?
    Taxes to support the legitimate functions of government are different than a private group's dues, in addition the government is not supposed to engage in speech while unions are allowed to engage in it.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  31. #27
    Quote Originally Posted by Xerographica View Post
    Where did I say that the bill of rights was created by the supreme court? The issue is their interpretation of the first amendment.
    Please clarify what you wrote:
    The constitution was amended to include protection for speech. According to the 5 citizens in robes...





    Also, the first amendment is a reminder to the federal government about people’s natural rights. Spoiler alert, all 10 parts of the bill of rights are reminders to the federal government.

    Are you aware that article 1 of the constitution meantions taxation multiple times? You haven’t made any acknowledgement to this simple fact.

  32. #28
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    If the government doesn't issue any propaganda then 0% of its spending is speech and 0% of my taxes are for speech.
    So you're equating "propaganda" and "speech"? Free speech is the same thing as free propaganda?

    Consider this...

    The Soviet Union outspends us on defense by 50 percent, an amount equal to 15 percent of their gross national product. During the campaign I was asked any number of times: If I were faced with a choice of balancing the budget or restoring our national defenses, what would I do? Every time I said, "Restore our defenses." And every time I was applauded. - Ronald Reagan
    Was it "speech" when Reagan went around saying "Restore our defense"?

    If it helps...

    When speech is compelled, however, additional damage is done. In that situation, individuals are coerced into betraying their convictions. Forcing free and independent individuals to endorse ideas they find objectionable is always demeaning, and for this reason, one of our landmark free speech cases said that a law commanding “involuntary affirmation” of objected-to beliefs would require “even more immediate and urgent grounds” than a law demanding silence.

    Compelling a person to subsidize the speech of other private speakers raises similar First Amendment concerns. As Jefferson famously put it, “to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhor[s] is sinful and tyrannical.” - Supreme Court, Janus v. AFSCME

  33. #29
    Quote Originally Posted by TommyJeff View Post
    Please clarify what you wrote:
    The constitution was amended to include protection for speech. According to the 5 citizens in robes...





    Also, the first amendment is a reminder to the federal government about people’s natural rights. Spoiler alert, all 10 parts of the bill of rights are reminders to the federal government.

    Are you aware that article 1 of the constitution meantions taxation multiple times? You haven’t made any acknowledgement to this simple fact.
    When you talk about "natural rights" it seems like we're from completely different planets. On my planet, there aren't any natural rights. Nature does not confer or grant any rights. Neither does any god. What is, and is not, allowed is largely determined by the government, which is significantly influenced by voters.

    For the longest time people were allowed to drink alcohol. Then the majority of voters decided that alcohol should be prohibited, and the government gave them what they wanted. Even if a taxpayer thought that prohibition was the stupidest thing in the world, their taxes helped to pay for it.

    Just like, way back in the day, even if an Egyptian taxpayer thought that the pyramids were the stupidest thing in the world, their taxes helped to pay for it.

    Just like now, even if an American taxpayer thinks that war is the stupidest thing in the world, their taxes help to pay for it.

    The Supreme Court decided that people should not be forced to help pay for anything that they consider to be seriously stupid.

    Now, everything aside, do you truly think it's beneficial to force people to pay for things that they consider to be seriously stupid? Do you believe it's a good idea to take away people's freedom to boycott seriously stupid things?

    On the planet that I want to live on, everybody has the freedom to boycott seriously stupid things.

  34. #30
    Quote Originally Posted by Xerographica View Post
    On the planet that I want to live on, everybody has the freedom to boycott seriously stupid things.
    Unfortunately, the inhabitants of the planet, you are currently living on, have no problems with preference falsification. All of it is done in the name of getting ahead. http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...th-Public-Lies

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 8
    Last Post: 06-22-2017, 10:52 AM
  2. Replies: 13
    Last Post: 09-18-2012, 03:05 PM
  3. As to Employees, Federal Withholding Taxes are Unconstitutional
    By Douglass Bartley in forum U.S. Constitution
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 03-21-2012, 05:47 AM
  4. Overstock leaves Illinois over unconstitutional taxes
    By axiomata in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 04-05-2011, 09:36 PM
  5. Replies: 38
    Last Post: 06-14-2008, 09:01 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •