On the elimination of the Federal Income Tax.

Our supreme law of the land is enumerated, and listed by article and section.

 

Because the original constitution actually prohibited a head tax. It had to be amended.

 

From Article 1, Section 9:

 

a capitation is a head tax

 

Any capitation or head tax is a direct tax.

 

Right. Which is why the constitution was amended.

 

It didn't need to be amended since that power was available after the first census or enumeration.

 

Absolutely not true. A "head tax" taxes all equally. An income tax taxes incomes, something not permissible by the Constitution until AFTER the Sixteenth Amendment. A progressive Income Tax modeled after Pillar #2 of the Communist Manifesto seeks to tax higher incomes at higher rates and is not permissible under the Sixteenth Amendment as it does not grant that "power."

 

You answered your own question. Would you like me to post the definition of "enumerated" again? It means in a list. Yes, if something does not appear in a "list" they are not enumerated.

 

Forget for a moment that a list doesn't have a specific format. Would you say the taxing power was not enumerated?

 

I really don’t see the point of if it is, or it is not. I would say “no” it is not as it is not in a list, and the historical argument made by the Founders, those who wrote the Constitution spoke of the “Enumerated Powers.” We don’t get to spin the words of the Constitution to make it mean what we want. The meaning was defined by those who wrote it. If you don’t like there meaning legally amend the Constitution.

Again, Madison (who many refer to as the “Father of the Constitution”) wrote the following in Federalist

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.​

Madison could not have, and would not have written those words if anything can be done under the general welfare clause as that clause is not “defined.” Tell me, how does Obabacare, Freddie and Fannie, the FED, the Democrat Welfare State, how do any of those things pertain to “war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce?” If you can’t answer that question how can federal tax money are used to fund those things? After all Madison wrote “The… (power of the federal government) will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected.” To say things have changed one needs to point to how that change occurred. Where are the legal amendments? I say there are no amendments, only threats and the enactment of Treason and Tyranny (unrestrained power). I, of course am right.

 

Madison wrote the quote in Federalist 45...

 

Eliminating the federal income tax is a terrible idea unless you precede it with a massive reduction in federal spending.

The whole "starve the government" concept doesn't work, because all that happens is the debt ceiling rises.

To truly have a smaller government, the focus should be on spending, not taxes.

Tax cuts should come later.

 

It can't be real times of war if the wealthiest are unwilling to pay wartime tax rates for it. Therefore, we can eliminate the entitlement spending on our wars on crime, drugs, poverty, and terror.

 

What we need to do is limit federal spending to that which is listed and authorized in the Constitution. That of course would destroy the Democrat party. If they WANT to come up with another welfare or "entitlement" (something no one has a "right" to receive) they can either voluntarily pay for it themselves or get a legitimate and legal Constitutional Amendment officially giving that power to the government, which would allow it to be paid for by tax money. Of course getting a Constitutional Amendment is hard work. Obamacare could never have been done legally as it simply is too unpopular for such an amendment. Democrats have to cheat to succeeded.

 

Well, if we actually did limit government spending to just the Constitution's provisions, that would cut out Medicare. Doing that would tick off the most reliable voting bloc -- the elderly.

There's a reason why politicians of both parties support Medicare -- because they want to get re-elected.

In principle, I agree with the idea of limiting federal spending to the Constitution, but the reality is that neither party would actually support that.

 

Yes, basically Democrats got We the People addicted to crack, and the Republicans are afraid to take it away. That is the political reality of this country!

Either we as a country all collectively seek nationwide rehab or die.

 

The Preamble to the US Constitution is below;

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.​

The Progressive Left's direction for the country (more unconstitutional spending and less individual liberty) will destroy the country. They have no answer to this contention as it is fact. We cannot "...secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity..." and elect Democrats, and Progressive Republicans.

 

It can't be real times of war if the wealthiest are unwilling to pay wartime tax rates for it. Therefore, we can eliminate the entitlement spending on our wars on crime, drugs, poverty, and terror.

 

The first income tax in the United States Started during the civil war
And as republicans remind us over and over the government was run by republicans


Conservatives never let facts get in their way

 

And your "point?" The first income tax was used to pay for that which was a legal constitutional expense of government, the war debt. The first income tax was later ruled unconstitutional. Democrats passed a legal constitutional amendment for the income tax, and then started charging people income tax to fund things not authorized by the Constitution. There is no comparison in the rational world...

 

The federal income tax is a massive burden on our real economy that exists only to satiate the greed of politicians and special interests. It's also theft.

 

Taxes make a difference to countries that are revenue constrained, as in they need revenue in order to spend since they have no control over their monetary system. In the United States, the govt/banks first have to fund the people before the people can ever fund the government. So truthfully we are more dependent on the government spending money to fund us then the government is on our taxes since they have an infinite bankroll.

At the end of the day, taxes are just a form of inflation control in a monetary system like ours.

- - - Updated - - -

Actually the thieves are those that don't pay their taxes. Which is why they go to jail and the federal government doesn't. You can't just make up your own laws, lol. Well I guess libertarians can do whatever they want since they just make stuff up.

 

I hope you realize that just because something is read into the congressional record, does not mean it should be taken seriously. page after page of phone book listings have appeared in the CR (during old style filibusters). Congress Critters routinely have all sorts of ideological crapola read into it in order to make a point for their voters back home.

 

Can you name one nation/state/civilization that has ever actually tried to implement such a system? The ones I can think of all turned quickly into feudal systems (see history of the rise of feudalism in Europe, China and Japan - they all started out as voluntary, with the farmers/peasants agreeing to provide labor to the warlord in exchange for his protection from the brigands, very quickly the warlords eliminated the voluntary part of the bargain).