Menu Close Menu

Forum

Should we stop paying taxes? / Politics & Current Events / Gay Forum

You are not logged in.

#1 Aug 28, 2019 2:14:AM

TheGayGene
Member

Should we stop paying taxes?

Of course, this is geared toward the United States Constitution.

"No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken."

There was a case that was heard at the Supreme Court... On the constitutionality of removing the requirement that direct taxes be apportioned.  One of the Justices, if I recall correctly, stated that proportion my no longer be a requirement, but the object of taxation wasn't changed.  This got me wondering for quite a while what this meant.  Not understanding the terminology, it took me a while, and it was that case that eventually made it seem clear.

Direct Taxes - Can only be applied upon the state.  That is the property being taxed.  And the Constitution allowed a tax Directly upon the states, but to be fair, the State Governments only had to pay according to the population at the time the Census was last taken.  So if the Federal Government needed $10 Billion, the states would be responsible for their share based on the percentage of the population of their state, compared to the others.

So, Income taxes are unconstitutional.  Most European countries have a Valued Added Tax (VAT) that they use to fund their governments. 

Not to mention, the 16th Amendment doesn't really seem to distinguish the sources of income.

"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."

So why is it that Income from labor is taxed at 20%... and income from investments is only taxed at 10%? 

Why isn't this discussed among the politicians?  Status Quo I guess.  Don't bite the hand that feeds you.

Offline

#2 Aug 28, 2019 3:24:AM

FantasyDjinn
Member

Re: Should we stop paying taxes?

Yes. I am a proponent of automation in our world and using a VAT, as well as a corporate taxes, for such machines to pay in-lieu of people being under direct taxation. This would provide a dividend for society as a Universal Basic Income. The Age of Automation could drive us into a larger issue of "who does the money go to" and quite frankly: Societies with less government corruption and usher in a Golden Age for innovation by freeing up more time for us all.

Last edited by FantasyDjinn (Aug 28, 2019 3:25:AM)

Offline

#3 Aug 29, 2019 12:29:AM

MikeSt1955
Member

Re: Should we stop paying taxes?

In 1913, the Sixteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was ratified. It states: "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."

So income tax *was* unconstitutional, but this amendment was passed specifically to permit it. Anyone saying income taxes are unconstitutional is over 100 years out of date.

Offline

#4 Aug 29, 2019 12:28:PM

TheGayGene
Member

Re: Should we stop paying taxes?

MikeSt1955 wrote:

In 1913, the Sixteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was ratified. It states: "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."

So income tax *was* unconstitutional, but this amendment was passed specifically to permit it. Anyone saying income taxes are unconstitutional is over 100 years out of date.

Yes, but there are two problems with that.
1. Amendments weren't intended to allow you to state something contrary to the existing Constitution when passed.  So if you go to court, and your attorney submits a statement that says you'd never met John Smith or had any dealings with him, you cannot then amend the statement to say you were friends for 10 years.  The attorney would have to withdraw the statement, and submit a new one.  By definition, an amendment is intended to clarify or add to an existing document, not take away.

2. The Congress had the power to tax indirectly, or directly.  Indirect taxes were basically a Sales Tax of some sort.  A tax on the sale of alcohol.  A tax on horse carriage rides.  But it was a tax in addition to a sale at the time of the sale.  Direct Taxes, according to the constitution, is a Direct Tax usually apportioned according to something of value.  i.e. Property tax is a tax based on either the size of property, or the value of that property. or a Capitation Tax, which is a tax upon the head.  So each person will owe $500 to pay for said project.  Or more clearly, Project X will cost $5,000,000 - So a population of 5,000,000 would pay $1 each.  The Constitution allows for Direct Taxes upon the states.  Originally, only if they were apportioned by population.  The Constitution didn't allow for a person being taxed directly.  So if the Federal Government needed $1 Trillion for this fiscal year, then they would tell the states - okay... $1 Trillion direct tax.  That's approximately $3,057/person - so the state would owe their population multiplied by that number.  The state is the object of direct taxation.  The people are not.  So in a sense, the amendment could be construed as allowing the federal government to tax the states income, regardless of where it comes from.

Ultimately, the federal government is the "United States" of America.  Therefore, the citizens of the United States, are the states themselves.

Sorry, a bid wordy, but at least to me, it makes sense.

Last edited by TheGayGene (Aug 29, 2019 12:35:PM)

Offline

Powered by FluxBB