No, that is the issue. Most libertarians are ivory tower dopes who blather like girls.Originally Posted by ClaytonB
You have to reach people before digging in. Someone convince me why I should read any of this thread. You have three seconds.
Disrupt, Deny, Deflate. Read the RPF trolls' playbook here (post #3): http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...eptive-members
Don't. Go do what you're good at for the cause of liberty, instead.
The Kingdom of God has come upon you. -- Matthew 12:28
We're not reaching people. We need business minded marketers.
Disrupt, Deny, Deflate. Read the RPF trolls' playbook here (post #3): http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...eptive-members
If you can't make an attention grabbing graphic, then summarize this boring direct tax issue in 3 bullet points. If you can't do bullet points, then do it in 3 sentences.
Disrupt, Deny, Deflate. Read the RPF trolls' playbook here (post #3): http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...eptive-members
As a matter of self-improvement, I've done a bit of memeing practice on this forum, probably at the expense of minor brain-damage to forum participants. Memeing, marketing, stumping, hyping, etc. is an art in itself. Those who develop it will excel at it. I've primarily developed other skills. In the last couple years I've done some backfill on my wit. But wit is not everything. It will not carry the day. You need both -- presentation to hook people, and then substance to persuade them to stay.
- States are where the popular vote occurs and is counted (representation, "democracy")
- The Framers put the States (and their people) in charge of all regulation and taxation except those few powers enumerated to the Federal government in the Constitution, see the 9th and 10th Amendments.
- Direct taxation by the Federal government means any tax that bypasses the State governments (hence, DIRECT) and was explicitly prohibited by the Framers because it is taxation without representation, unless it is apportioned, which means that each State's citizens pay proportionally to their representation in Congress.
The Kingdom of God has come upon you. -- Matthew 12:28
Okay, thanks. Now I think I get it.
So a Wyoming resident would pay a much smaller income tax percentage than a New York resident. Is that right?
Disrupt, Deny, Deflate. Read the RPF trolls' playbook here (post #3): http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...eptive-members
So it looks to me like Article 1, Section 9, Clause 4 is in conflict with the 16th amendment.
Disrupt, Deny, Deflate. Read the RPF trolls' playbook here (post #3): http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...eptive-members
As I understand, the revenue collected on an apportioned tax would be pro-rata to each state according to its population... so Wyomingans would be paying a much smaller total tax bill than New Yorkers. In theory, that would all "cancel out" so that the net-percentage would theoretically be the same.
But I don't think that's what the Framers were primarily concerned with. I think they wanted the burden to fall to each state in proportion to its representation in Congress in order to ensure that any direct Federal tax would be unpopular and would be most resisted by the big states. This is the opposite of what we have now. The biggest states are the biggest proponents of higher Federal taxes, because they are more "plugged in" to the pork-barrel system than smaller states. That's exactly what the Framers knew would happen.
The Kingdom of God has come upon you. -- Matthew 12:28
This is reminds me of the electoral college issue. The whole one man-one vote thing for the entire country is appealing. I try to tell people that half the population lives in less than 5% of the country's geography. That means that a national candidate would have no reason to campaign in the Dakotas or similar states. I show this map (yes, a graphic!) and I think they get it.
Disrupt, Deny, Deflate. Read the RPF trolls' playbook here (post #3): http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...eptive-members
This. Plus rep for JohnWK. Paid troll, tax lawyer, and government bootlicker Tufts is a slimy slug.
Disrupt, Deny, Deflate. Read the RPF trolls' playbook here (post #3): http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...eptive-members
With regard to our Constitution’s rules regarding apportionment, the two formulas which govern apportionment are:
States’ population
---------------------------- X SUM TO BE RAISED = STATE’S FAIR SHARE
Total U.S. Population
Note also that each State’s number or Representatives, under our Constitution is determined by the rule of apportionment:
State`s Pop.
------------------- X House size (435) = State`s No. of Representatives
U.S. Pop.
The above formula, as intended by our founding fathers, is to ensure that each state’s share of a total amount being raised by Congress by a direct tax is proportionately equal to its representation in Congress, i.e., representation with a proportional financial obligation!
And if the tax is laid directly upon the people by Congress rather than Congress sending each state a bill for its apportioned share, then every taxpayer across the United States is to pay the exact same amount, i.e., one man, one vote, and, one vote, one dollar!
Let us review some of our founder’s thinking regarding the rule of apportionment:
Pinckney addressing the S.C. ratification convention with regard to the rule of apportionment says:
“With regard to the general government imposing internal taxes upon us, he contended that it was absolutely necessary they should have such a power: requisitions had been in vain tried every year since the ratification of the old Confederation, and not a single state had paid the quota required of her. The general government could not abuse this power, and favor one state and oppress another, as each state was to be taxed only in proportion to its representation.” 4 Elliot‘s, S.C., 305-6
And then see:
“The proportion of taxes are fixed by the number of inhabitants, and not regulated by the extent of the territory, or fertility of soil”3 Elliot’s, 243,“Each state will know, from its population, its proportion of any general tax” 3 Elliot’s, 244 ___ Mr. George Nicholas, during the ratification debates of our Constitution.
Mr. Madison goes on to remark about Congress’s “general power of taxation” that, "they will be limited to fix the proportion of each State, and they must raise it in the most convenient and satisfactory manner to the public."3 Elliot, 255
And if there is any confusion about the rule of apportionment intentionally designed to insure that the people of each state are to be taxed proportionately equal to their representation in Congress, Mr. PENDLETON says:
“The apportionment of representation and taxation by the same scale is just; it removes the objection, that, while Virginia paid one sixth part of the expenses of the Union, she had no more weight in public counsels than Delaware, which paid but a very small portion”3 Elliot’s 41
.
If everything was so perfect with the Framers, then how did we end up like this?
"If the locks on your house were so good, how come we were able to break in?"
The locks weren't there to make it impossible to break in. The locks were there to rouse the homeowner in case of a home-invasion.
Vengeance is coming.
The Kingdom of God has come upon you. -- Matthew 12:28
Is that on Netflix?
Of course it isn't. If the people, through their state legislatures and congressional representatives, don't like a SCOTUS decision on constitutional law they can get an amendment passed that overturns it. This has happened four times, one of which was the 16th, which overturned the result in Pollock, a case you don't seem to understand. The reason it was so unpopular was that it gave a huge exemption to the wealthy whose income consisted chiefly of investment income.
You also ignore the fact that even before the 16th Amendment Congress had the authority to tax other types of income, specifically including pay-for-work. How? Because of the broad taxing authority the Founders granted it in Article I, Section 8. And please try to learn what a "direct tax" is as that term is used in the Constitution. It isn't one that paid directly by an individual, as the carriage and gift taxes illustrate. In fact, under current law the only direct taxes are capitations and taxes on real and personal property by reason of ownership.
No taxation without representation??? Where in the world do you think the income tax comes from -- a king? It comes from Congress -- you know, those people who are the representatives of the folks who voted for them. The people get whatever level of taxation they allow their representatives to enact.
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
Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard.
- H. L. Mencken
The Kingdom of God has come upon you. -- Matthew 12:28
Please cite the case that overruled Hylton.
The crackpot argument that it's not the wages themselves that are taxable but only the income earned by investing the wages, dividends, and interest was rejected in Lucas v. Earl, in which Mr. Earl was held to be taxable on 100% of his salary. You know that was the case in which the Court said, "There is no doubt that the statute could tax salaries to those who earned them....”
Precisely. Yet under your argument the wealthy wouldn't pay tax on their investment income when they first receive it. They'd only pay tax on the income derived from investing the originally-received income. Nice loophole you got there.
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
Only if you believe that an income tax is a direct tax.
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
Not necessarily. It depends on what the tax base is. If the tax base is not present among the state in accordance with their populations, an apportioned tax will result in different tax rates among the states. That was the issue in the Hylton case, where the tax base was carriages. Suppose States A and B have similar populations and each is expected to produce $1,000 in revenue. But there are 80 carriages in State A and 20 in State B. Each carriage in A is taxed at $12.50 and each in State B is taxed at $50. Hardly fair, is it? And woe be unto the first guy to bring a carriage into State C (assume it's got a population similar to A's and B's).
Like the hypothetical carriages, income isn't distributed among the states by population. If two states with similar populations but different per capita income were subject to an apportioned income tax, people in the poorer state would pay a higher tax rate than the folks in the richer state. For example, Massachusetts and Indiana have similar populations, yet the per capita income of Massachusetts is $46,241 while that of Indiana is $30,988. So if the same amount of revenue has to come from each state the taxpayers in Indiana will end up paying at a higher rate.
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
Income tax is not direct?
Disrupt, Deny, Deflate. Read the RPF trolls' playbook here (post #3): http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...eptive-members
Yeah, math is kind of my thing, so I get that. Hence why I qualified that this isn't what the Founders were actually trying to accomplish. But it's an acceptable first-approximation.
The Kingdom of God has come upon you. -- Matthew 12:28
Tufts said he is a tax lawyer. This is the heart of tax season. Why isn't he busy with clients instead of posting here?
Disrupt, Deny, Deflate. Read the RPF trolls' playbook here (post #3): http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...eptive-members
Not as the term "direct tax" is used in the Constitution.
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
Lol. You made that up.
Disrupt, Deny, Deflate. Read the RPF trolls' playbook here (post #3): http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...eptive-members
The Kingdom of God has come upon you. -- Matthew 12:28
And paid troll Tufts won't answer my question on why he's not serving his clients. His gig here must be better. Pitiful. lol
Disrupt, Deny, Deflate. Read the RPF trolls' playbook here (post #3): http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...eptive-members
That paid-propagandist life be like...
The Kingdom of God has come upon you. -- Matthew 12:28
Off the top:
1. The income tax was imposed on the basis of generating revenue to support war efforts; however, the USA has not declared war since 1942. Moreover, it has gone on to be misappropriated in order to sustain myriads of social justice programs that are entirely outside of the powers of the federal government--amendments to our Constitution are otherwise necessary.
2. Mandatory payroll withholdings violate the 5th Amend., as it's the taking of personal property without just compensation and solely to the benefit of the government--the taxpayer forever looses the ability to collect investment interest on the withheld sums, while the government does and neglects to proffer it as either a tax deduction or refund of any type.
3. State income taxes further subjugate individual rights and constitutional protections as states imposing income taxes do so upon the whole amount due (firstly) to the federal government, yet without any prudent consideration that a portion of that sum was never at any point in time in the possession or control of the taxpayer--state income taxes should only tax the remaining sum that was precedently taken by the federal government. Otherwise, taxpayers are being doubly taxed upon monies that was of no practicable benefit to them other than for the purpose of being taxed to the benefit and advantage of the state and federal governments (i.e., the government is using these withholdings to generate pooled investment interest throughout the year and then at the end of the year collects taxes from these sums from each individual taxpayer.)
Bonuses:
4. Taxes imposed upon employee wages are only constitutional when the employer is obliged to pay them--for only then can it be found to be 'indirect' as meant under our Constitution.
5. The income tax scheme was conceived of by a sickly, drunkard Brit who lived a highly privileged life--well, until his young death, leaving behind a ludicrous amount of debt and the knowledge that his income taxing scheme was a consistent failure.
“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding one’s self in the ranks of the insane.” — Marcus Aurelius
“They’re not buying it. CNN, you dumb bastards!” — President Trump 2020
Consilio et Animis de Oppresso Liber
A tax upon the national workforce is by definition a 'direct tax.'
“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding one’s self in the ranks of the insane.” — Marcus Aurelius
“They’re not buying it. CNN, you dumb bastards!” — President Trump 2020
Consilio et Animis de Oppresso Liber
Pollock.
So says the pot to the kettle. Ohhh, yea, that case wherein "the income of a husband by way of salary and attorney's fees is taxable to him." Sure, sure. Gotcha!
The source is not ever taxable, only the gain or profit that becomes severed from it--as constitutional 'income.' It's not the source that is the subject of income taxation.
Well, your reply is rather convoluted, but, objectively, it actually would depend on how they first received it, e.g., gifted, earned, lottery winnings, inheritance, theft, fraud, etc., etc., as there are a myriad of possibilities; however, generally speaking investment income is always taxable as income.
...And it's not not a "loophole," it's a qualifying equation of cause and effect.
“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding one’s self in the ranks of the insane.” — Marcus Aurelius
“They’re not buying it. CNN, you dumb bastards!” — President Trump 2020
Consilio et Animis de Oppresso Liber
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Connect With Us