posted by ptown_trojans_1

I love you tax is theft people. You act like the 16th Amendment does not exist or that the fact that taxation was included in the Constitution does not exist. The Government does have the authority per the Constitution. 

"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."

Again, you skip the important step that the Founders had no right to write and enforce a damn thing without the consent of the individual, NOT "the people". Why would Jefferson, etc. have any say over my life then, much less more than two centuries later? The correct response is violence or the threat of same.

posted by Dr Winston O'Boogie

Everyone pays tax somewhere.  

The criminal doesn't give anything in return. You get something for your taxes. You may not like the bargain and so you are free to go elsewhere. 

The first response is simply not true.

As to the second, it's no different than saying my business paying protection money to the mob is a bargain I can take, or I can move, or I can risk my business being burned to the ground, either with me in it or not.

posted by justincredible

I was speaking directly in the US. Prohibition is stupid, but at least it was overturned.

Sure, I'll add in Vietnam then as another massive dumb idea. 

I'll even say the US decision to not join the League of Nations was a worse idea as well. But, that is just my reading of modern US history. 

posted by jmog

Exactly, if income tax had stayed how it was and you had to send in the money...within a decade our government would be MUCH smaller as the people would revolt.

80% of the people don't even pay attention to how much of their check is gone to taxes.

I doubt it because I am pretty sure the U.S. would have instituted the federal income tax again during World War I in order to pay for the war or even during the Great Depression or World War II. 

It certainty would have been used in the post war period. 

posted by queencitybuckeye

Again, you skip the important step that the Founders had no right to write and enforce a damn thing without the consent of the individual, NOT "the people". Why would Jefferson, etc. have any say over my life then, much less more than two centuries later? The correct response is violence or the threat of same.

If that was the case, there would not have been an Amendment process. The founders were just as divided on those issues as we are now. Hamilton's views were as vastly different than Jefferson's on this very issue on rights and consent. 

posted by ptown_trojans_1

If that was the case, there would not have been an Amendment process. The founders were just as divided on those issues as we are now. Hamilton's views were as vastly different than Jefferson's on this very issue on rights and consent. 

You can't get past the notion that someone has some sort of divine right to rule. Your argument is that the constitution is valid because it's the constitution. Your argument is flawed.

Ptown trying way to hard to defend the theft that we know of as federal taxes

posted by queencitybuckeye

You can't get past the notion that someone has some sort of divine right to rule. Your argument is that the constitution is valid because it's the constitution. Your argument is flawed.

I think that is debatable when that applies to taxes. Again, this debate goes back to Jefferson v. Hamilton. 

Why pay taxes when the govt can just print 6 trillion dollars in a year? Until we fix our money none of this matters anyway.

posted by ptown_trojans_1

I doubt it because I am pretty sure the U.S. would have instituted the federal income tax again during World War I in order to pay for the war or even during the Great Depression or World War II. 

It certainty would have been used in the post war period. 

I didn't say there wouldn't be a federal income tax, I should the people would revolt and only vote in those that actually want small government if they actually paid attention to how much of their checks go to the government.

posted by ptown_trojans_1

I think that is debatable when that applies to taxes. Again, this debate goes back to Jefferson v. Hamilton. 

It doesn't. It goes back to neither of them having any right to form an organization that compels me to do a damn thing. They are nothing but Vito Corleone using the word "government" instead of "family".

posted by queencitybuckeye

It's a small number of people, but that certainly doesn't justify its existence IMO.

Correct.  It is a moral issue as well.  If someone amassed a $30 million estate, why should the government get $10 million of it (40%, after the $5 mill exemption). 

Sickening. 

posted by jmog

I didn't say there wouldn't be a federal income tax, I should the people would revolt and only vote in those that actually want small government if they actually paid attention to how much of their checks go to the government.

Maybe. It could also force a large amount of people to actual focus on what makes good governance, and what services are their taxes going toward and for. 

posted by queencitybuckeye

It doesn't. It goes back to neither of them having any right to form an organization that compels me to do a damn thing. They are nothing but Vito Corleone using the word "government" instead of "family".

Yeah, that is an actual debate the founding fathers had and we are having today. You act like it is settled doctrine and I am saying it is not. 

posted by QuakerOats

Correct.  It is a moral issue as well.  If someone amassed a $30 million estate, why should the government get $10 million of it (40%, after the $5 mill exemption). 

Sickening. 

You're "sickened" or "disgusted" every day.  You must  be the most miserable SOB on God's creation.

posted by queencitybuckeye

It doesn't. It goes back to neither of them having any right to form an organization that compels me to do a damn thing. They are nothing but Vito Corleone using the word "government" instead of "family".

Queencitybuckeye, you're my fellow poster and I love you.  But don't ever take sides with anyone against the family again.  Ever.

posted by ptown_trojans_1

Yeah, that is an actual debate the founding fathers had and we are having today. You act like it is settled doctrine and I am saying it is not. 

According to whom? The notion of "settled" implies that the "founders" had some sort of standing. You can't seem to get your head around the fact that they weren't anointed by anyone and had no more standing to form a government than you or I do. So I'll give up and wish you a great day.

posted by queencitybuckeye

According to whom? The notion of "settled" implies that the "founders" had some sort of standing. You can't seem to get your head around the fact that they weren't anointed by anyone and had no more standing to form a government than you or I do. So I'll give up and wish you a great day.

No. I am referring to your settled fact that you think that no one has more standing to form a government than you or I. 

Sure, you and I have rights given by God, but do taxes and other laws formed by a government, laws of man, and our civil society infringe on those rights and if so where is that line? That is the debate. 

You seem to imply that no government has any right to do anything that will infringe on your property. I am saying that several hundred years of history and debate suggest that is not the case. 

Who are these chosen people with more standing than me, and how did they get it?

posted by jmog

80% of the people don't even pay attention to how much of their check is gone to taxes.

I've mentioned this a few times over the years, but if you guys want some insights into the financial stupid and irresponsible, pick-up some behavioral finance books.

Anyway, one of the insights is how people compartmentalize budgets and expenses.  For example, send someone a $600 stimulus check and it's a windfall to be spent, even if their bonus was $1000 lower than average this year...so they've increased spending, eventhough their total income decreased.

With respect to taxes, it's absolutely hideous.  You take from a bunch of different sources a little at a time, and this is more tolerated and less noticeable than a one-time payment annually (especially when most taxpayers end-up with a refund).

People have advocated for more transparency so people understand their true tax burdens.  To be honest, I'd have to put in some serious work to calculate how much sales tax I'm paying.  The rest is pretty clear on the tax return, although a lot of people don't do their taxes and only pay attention to the refund or what they owe (and that's the "beauty" of how the system is set-up).  Even then, it's not entirely straightforward because you take out FICA to get "adjusted AGI", as if what you actually made isn't yours to begin with.  And then you have to go over to your state tax return to get the rest, and by the way property taxes are only a deduction on the return since that's collected thru another process.

Throughout history, a central tenet of maintaining govt control has been to keep the mob stupid and in the dark.  There may not be a better example of that than our tax system.

posted by ptown_trojans_1

I'll even say the US decision to not join the League of Nations was a worse idea as well.

posted by Dr Winston O'Boogie

You're "sickened" or "disgusted" every day.  You must  be the most miserable SOB on God's creation.

Not at all ...................I was describing a situation, not me.  

This conversation is way to serious for the progressive thread. We should be making fun of Maxine Waters calling for premeditated murder for Trump, or AOC completely playing the public about how at risk she was during the capital riot. Come on!

posted by queencitybuckeye

Who are these chosen people with more standing than me, and how did they get it?

What chosen people? You mean the people that write our laws? The people you elect? 

It is like you are against any and all laws of man. 

I'm saying the modern laws and things like taxes are an extension of the social contract theory. How far those laws invade our personal space and property is up for debate, but as a citizen of the country, you agree to at the very least to the concept. 

posted by gut

I've mentioned this a few times over the years, but if you guys want some insights into the financial stupid and irresponsible, pick-up some behavioral finance books.

Anyway, one of the insights is how people compartmentalize budgets and expenses.  For example, send someone a $600 stimulus check and it's a windfall to be spent, even if their bonus was $1000 lower than average this year...so they've increased spending, eventhough their total income decreased.

With respect to taxes, it's absolutely hideous.  You take from a bunch of different sources a little at a time, and this is more tolerated and less noticeable than a one-time payment annually (especially when most taxpayers end-up with a refund).

People have advocated for more transparency so people understand their true tax burdens.  To be honest, I'd have to put in some serious work to calculate how much sales tax I'm paying.  The rest is pretty clear on the tax return, although a lot of people don't do their taxes and only pay attention to the refund or what they owe (and that's the "beauty" of how the system is set-up).  Even then, it's not entirely straightforward because you take out FICA to get "adjusted AGI", as if what you actually made isn't yours to begin with.  And then you have to go over to your state tax return to get the rest, and by the way property taxes are only a deduction on the return since that's collected thru another process.

Throughout history, a central tenet of maintaining govt control has been to keep the mob stupid and in the dark.  There may not be a better example of that than our tax system.

Agree that the confusion and complexity of the system is not only a way to keep people in the dark, but to benefit the ones that can best manipulate the system.