Dumocracy rules!

Status
Not open for further replies.

elected4ever

New member
Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states which may be included within this union, according to their respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.

No capitation, or other direct, tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken.

Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Amendment XVI
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.

A direct tax is an income tax. This direct tax was to be levied by apportionment the same as the Representatives of the House of Representatives were to be elected. Just as the number of Representatives of a state were to be subject to the population of a state so were the direct taxes. The states were to pay to the federal government a tax upon the income of the state based upon the population of the state. This was the fee the states were to pay the federal government for services the federal government undertook on behalf of the several states. The income tax or direct tax was never intended to be placed on individuals. The personal income tax was in fact foreign to the constitution and ruled as an unconstitutional tax and the courts held further that the income of an individual based upon his labor was indeed unconstitutional. Income was defined as the profit made from added value received as a result manufacturing or other legitimate business enterprise.

Wages, salaries and tips are not income for tax purposes. The income of a state is now taxed without regard to population but the representation in the House of Representatives is apportioned by population. That is the difference the 16th Amendment and the original wording of the constitution. The legal definition of income was never change in the 16th amendment so the words, from whatever source derived, does not apply to a personal income in any way. The personal income tax is but just one more example of perverted law.

Anyone who supports a personal income tax is a socialist by definition and the personal income tax is a socialist tax for the purpose of redistribution of wealth. It is theft. I could care less if someone wraps themselves in conservative clothing.
 

Yorzhik

Well-known member
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Income tax is by definition socialist? Yikes.

So taking money indirectly is not socialist? How does that work?

Taking money from citizens directly = socialist
Taking money from citizens indirectly = not socialist?

Or is the government not actually supposed to collect taxes of any kind?
 

elected4ever

New member
Yorzhik
Income tax is by definition socialist? Yikes.

e4e --------A direct tax is not socialism A direct tax is a value added tax in that it is a tax on the increased value on a manufactured product minus the cost of adding value. A personal income tax is socialism in that it seeks to take from the wages, salaries and tips earned by the individual and transfer the wealth to theses who did not earn the wages salaries and tips. The Idea of transfer of wealth from those who produce to those who do not produce is socialism. I hope you see the difference.

Yorzhik
So taking money indirectly is not socialist? How does that work?

e4e -------- A sales tax is an example of an indirect income tax. Sales tax is the tax paid by adding a certain % to the sale price of an idem. The one who pays the tax can control his tax by the amount that person chooses to spend. If no product is bought the sales tax can be avoided. This is not the improper transfer of wealth and the amount of taxation is seen up front.

Yorzhik
Or is the government not actually supposed to collect taxes of any kind?

e4e -------Unfortunately taxes are necessary for the support of government. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
 

Yorzhik

Well-known member
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
A direct tax is not socialism
I never said it was. I said, "a direct tax is socialist" which is a colloquial way of saying, "a direct tax is of the socialists." or "a direct tax is how socialists would prefer to handle taxation."

This is your quote from your previous post, which caused me to say what I did:
Anyone who supports a personal income tax is a socialist by definition and the personal income tax is a socialist tax for the purpose of redistribution of wealth.
Read again, and you will see I correctly identified what you meant.

On to the rest of your post:
A personal income tax is socialism in that it seeks to take from the wages, salaries and tips earned by the individual and transfer the wealth to theses who did not earn the wages salaries and tips.
You still need to establish, as I alluded to in my previous post, that indirect taxes are any different. Now I'm curious why you think the method of collecting taxes has anything to do with how those taxes are spent? Can you show ONE example of taxes that were collected directly that could not also be spent in exactly the same way that indirectly collected taxes could be spent? ONE example will be sufficient.

A sales tax is an example of an indirect income tax. Sales tax is the tax paid by adding a certain % to the sale price of an idem. The one who pays the tax can control his tax by the amount that person chooses to spend. If no product is bought the sales tax can be avoided. This is not the improper transfer of wealth and the amount of taxation is seen up front.
It doesn't matter if you can control (to a certain extent – you cannot stop all buying) how much you pay in taxes. If those taxes go to people to pay for things that a government is not supposed to do – it will be just as socialist in nature as direct taxes! (by your definition)

But here is a question for you: Is it morally okay for a government to force its citizens to collect its taxes? If a person didn't feel like charging sales tax on an item, even if they were being paid to do so, isn't it their right in a free society not to be conscripted into government service?

And another question, please answer both: isn't it inherently unfair to tax poorer people a larger percentage of what they earn because they *must* spend more of what they earn just to live?

Unfortunately taxes are necessary for the support of government.
Okay. So is there any government spending that is not a "socialist redistribution of wealth"?
 

elected4ever

New member
Yorzhik, for once I really enjoyed reading your post. For once I do not fell attacked but I sense an honest inquiry.

Taxes in general are the means by which a government sustains itself and conducts its business on behalf of the governed. When it comes to an income tax it is very important that one understand the definition of income. In come based on labor of an individual has never been held as income by the courts.

The income tax is basted on the profit made by adding value to something like turning apiece of steal into a hammer and selling the hammer at a profit. The cost of producing that hammer is an expense. The labor and material used to make the hammer are not income. They are resources used to produce the income. The income is the difference between the coast of production and the sale price.

Taxes themselves are not wealth redistribution tools. They are the tools to provide the lawful services rendered by government. The constitution of the United States defines the lawful services that are to be rendered by the government. These services are to be performed for the benefit of the whole and not for the benefit of one person or group at the expense of another. The constitution limits government involvement in the lives of the individual citizens. The income tax is not a Constitution form of taxation even with the 16th amendment because the amendment does nothing to change the definition of the word income.

The individual income tax on the wages, salaries and tips that as a result of employment are taxes meant to transfer wealth from those who earned to those who did not earn. That is a purely socialistic idea. The constitution does not allow the government to pay gratuities to business or individuals that are not in the direct employment of the government or under contract to it. To do so is to practice socialism and the government is engaging in an unlawful practice when it does. But you here no complaint or objection by the citizens or the church.
 

Yorzhik

Well-known member
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
I'm sorry I haven't gotten back to this thread. As usual, I don't have time to give every conversation justice.

In come based on labor of an individual has never been held as income by the courts.
The courts are wrong. The definition of income is a gain on capital or labor. In the bible, it is simply called "the increase", which is also a great definition.

The cost of producing that hammer is an expense. The labor and material used to make the hammer are not income.
Of course labor to make a hammer isn't income... to the hammer company. But the increase in the amount of money *a worker* receives from that very labor is absolutely income. If not, we may as well quit trying to speak English.

The constitution of the United States defines the lawful services that are to be rendered by the government.
Wrong. The bible does. Where the bible and the constitution are at odds is where we should stop paying attention to the constitution. One of these areas is in reference to what "income" is.

The individual income tax on the wages, salaries and tips that as a result of employment are taxes meant to transfer wealth from those who earned to those who did not earn.
I see where you are coming from. But the "transfer of wealth that is socialist in nature" should be considered a specific event. That is, where wealth is transfered that pays for lawful things that a gov't should do should not be considered "a transfer of wealth that is socialist in nature". Likewise, whenever taxes are spent that pay for things that are unlawful for the gov't to do (regardless what the constitution says), then that is a "transfer of wealth that is socialist in nature". Notice, it doesn't matter in any way if the taxes were collected from sales taxes or income taxes for this distinction to define whether a gov't is socialist in nature or not.

In conclusion, not all wealth transfers are equal. And it doesn't matter how taxes are collect for a gov't to act socialist or not.
 

elected4ever

New member
Yorzhik

The courts are wrong. The definition of income is a gain on capital or labor. In the bible, it is simply called "the increase", which is also a great definition.

e4e ----- I direct tax on labor is not biblical. Show me where the bible says that it is.

Yorzhik
The courts are wrong. The definition of income is a gain on capital or labor. In the bible, it is simply called "the increase", which is also a great definition.

e4e -------The courts are right. The bible never defines the term increase as a direct tax on labor but a tax upon that which the labor produced. The tax was on the wheat produced not the labor to produce it.

Yorzhik
Wrong. The bible does. Where the bible and the constitution are at odds is where we should stop paying attention to the constitution. One of these areas is in reference to what "income" is.

e4e ------- The bible has never been held as a legal document in the United States and therefore has no legal standing in court as such. The government of the United States was not formed on Biblical Principles and cannot be used to define government.

Yorzhik
I see where you are coming from. But the "transfer of wealth that is socialist in nature" should be considered a specific event. That is, where wealth is transfered that pays for lawful things that a gov't should do should not be considered "a transfer of wealth that is socialist in nature". Likewise, whenever taxes are spent that pay for things that are unlawful for the gov't to do (regardless what the constitution says), then that is a "transfer of wealth that is socialist in nature".

e4e --- The constitution defines the legitimate activities of the government and any expenditure of funds by the government for other functions is unconstitutional and therefore illegal. The expenditure of funds from the public treasury to individuals or business for any purpose other than when those individuals or businesses are in direct employ, or contracted for the goods and services necessary for the function of government is unconstitutional.

Yorzhik
In conclusion, not all wealth transfers are equal. And it doesn't matter how taxes are collect for a gov't to act socialist or not.

e4e --------You are quite right. The transfer of wealth is not equal. The government does have an equal obligation to each and every citizen to be responsible with how it expends the resources it receives. No citizen is above another and what is give to one must be given to all. To give funds to a citizen in the ghetto and not give the same stiffen to the man in the penthouse is unequal treatment under the law.
 

Yorzhik

Well-known member
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
e4e ----- I direct tax on labor is not biblical. Show me where the bible says that it is.
When God says pay a tenth of the increase in animals and crops, it was because the economy was based largly on animals and crops. So when God was talking about animals and crops, we was talking about the capital that the people had. Our capital is labor, so that is what God would tax today if we lived in the same system.

You count ten leaves on your mint, but you don't understand God's plan in taxation.

e4e -------The courts are right. The bible never defines the term increase as a direct tax on labor but a tax upon that which the labor produced. The tax was on the wheat produced not the labor to produce it.
The courts are wrong. First, labor is capital, and second, you should realize how a country would crumble if it didn't tax the labor on services. Services don't have a product. Txes pay for things that are available to everyone in a country, therefore, God expects everyone to pay that can. It is God's nature.

e4e ------- The bible has never been held as a legal document in the United States and therefore has no legal standing in court as such. The government of the United States was not formed on Biblical Principles and cannot be used to define government.
The bible is the only place where God gives his opinion on how a government should act. Any country that doesn't pay attention to God's opinion is not just wrong, but stupid. It still stands, regardless what a court might say, that if the bible and the constitution are at odds, we should ignore the constitution.

e4e --- The constitution defines the legitimate activities of the government
No, where the bible and the constitution are at odds, the constitution is wrong. If the bible calls something illigitimate, then the constitution has no right to call it legitimate. The bible defines, not the constitution.
 

elected4ever

New member
Yorzhik
When God says pay a tenth of the increase in animals and crops, it was because the economy was based largly on animals and crops. So when God was talking about animals and crops, we was talking about the capital that the people had. Our capital is labor, so that is what God would tax today if we lived in the same system.

e4e --- Wrong, a direct taxon labor was never invisioned by scripture but that which was produced by labol. The wages paid in the production were never taxed.

Yorzhik
The courts are wrong. First, labor is capital, and second, you should realize how a country would crumble if it didn't tax the labor on services. Services don't have a product. Txes pay for things that are available to everyone in a country, therefore, God expects everyone to pay that can. It is God's nature.

e4e ------- Tipical liberal, socialist mind set. The fact is that the government has no constitutional mandate to supply services to individual citizens outside its employ of contract obligations. Only those services mandated by the constitution are to be funded by government. Your right your little socialist world would crumble in that you could no longer steel from your neighbor to finance your obligation.

Yorzhik
The bible is the only place where God gives his opinion on how a government should act. Any country that doesn't pay attention to God's opinion is not just wrong, but stupid. It still stands, regardless what a court might say, that if the bible and the constitution are at odds, we should ignore the constitution.

e4e ---------- OK, go out and start shooting homos, withches, athest, murderers and non christians of every sort and lets see how for you get.

Yorzhik
No, where the bible and the constitution are at odds, the constitution is wrong. If the bible calls something illigitimate, then the constitution has no right to call it legitimate. The bible defines, not the constitution.

e4e ----- Maybe we should elect a king and dispense with the constitution all togeather.
 

Yorzhik

Well-known member
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
e4e --- Wrong, a direct taxon labor was never invisioned by scripture but that which was produced by labol. The wages paid in the production were never taxed.
Then you have an incorrect view of what money is. Money is nothing more than the representation of things. It is a physical record-keeping device. Read Thomas Sowell's "Basic Economics".

The courts are wrong. First, labor is capital, and second, you should realize how a country would crumble if it didn't tax the labor on services. Services don't have a product. Txes pay for things that are available to everyone in a country, therefore, God expects everyone to pay that can. It is God's nature.
e4e ------- Tipical liberal, socialist mind set. The fact is that the government has no constitutional mandate to supply services to individual citizens outside its employ of contract obligations. Only those services mandated by the constitution are to be funded by government. Your right your little socialist world would crumble in that you could no longer steel from your neighbor to finance your obligation.
Oh, but you're quite wrong here. When I said that the country would crumble if services were not taxed, I said nothing about what government is or is not supposed to pay for. What the government pays for is what makes it liberal or socialist, and I didn't say a thing about it. Read my quote again, I'm adding it for your reference.

However, I'm still correct that even if the government only paid for the stuff YOU are saying the government should pay for, it would still go bankrupt.

e4e ---------- OK, go out and start shooting homos, withches, athest, murderers and non christians of every sort and lets see how for you get
Ahhh, there's your problem. You don't understand the nature of God. In God's opinion, he wouldn't have the government have laws against being non-Christian.

e4e ----- Maybe we should elect a king and dispense with the constitution all togeather.
I have a better idea. Let's have a king and have a constitution too.
 

Jefferson

Administrator
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Enyart's most recent show (03-30-04) contains a good exchange with the Libertarian Party candidate for president on the income tax issue.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top