On the elimination of the Federal Income Tax.

"Why is that "fact"?

Why do you believe forced coercion is necessary? Why not volunteer contractual obligations? "
Isn't any law "forced coercion"?


Why not anarchy?


Lets all just do exactly as we please regardless of the effect on the rest of society. We wouldn't want to force anyone to do anything they do not want to do...or keep them from their freedom to do exactly as they please. That would be expecting a level of maturity some folks simply could never handle.

And what do you mean by voluntary contractural obligations? Isn't that simply "hoping" that someone will honor some contract when time come due? That's goes against the tenets of predatory capitalism, which is the system we live by.

 

Lmao!! Now that's funny.

 

Here are some problems with the discussion:

First we have an argument that uses the term "defense" from the Preamble to the USA Constitution to support itself but at the same time it rejects, from the same line, the term "welfare." Well guess what? You can't have one without the other, so now it's back to school for you with this Schoolhouse Rock video about The Preamble:

[video=youtube_share;pIKhRERqPS4]http://youtu.be/pIKhRERqPS4[/video]


Second, we have an argument over enumerations. Well guess what? You're arguing over definitions and it doesn't even matter. Prepare to be shocked and amazed as the 9th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution says that it doesn't actually care about enumerations:

And this topic was about removing Federal taxes somehow? Well guess what? You can't do any of those things in the Preamble to the USA Constitution if you remove the Federal taxes. Don't like taxes? Too bad. It's been the most common complaint from you and everyone else living in a society for the last 10,000 years. History says there's nothing worth it on the other side of no taxes, well maybe a dark age, bandits, or some barbarian hoards but, you know, nothing good.

 

What are you talking about?

The term “welfare” did not mean handouts to specific people in 1789. It meant what was good for the country as a whole. Even the Preamble states the Constitution must “provide for the common defense, (and) promote the general welfare.” Providing for something is quite different than promoting something… The Preamble also states the Constitution is to “secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity,” something Democrats can never claim!

There is no argument about “enumerations.” The Enumerations authorize government powers. If a function of government is not enumerated the government has no legal authority for their actions. The 9th Amendment simply states no enumerated power usurps individual liberty.

 

Our welfare programs can be filed under general welfare. In the past, enough people had problems that welfare programs were created by the government to address the problems.

 

I don't see anything in the title of the topic about removing all of the federal taxes: just the federal income tax.

- - - Updated - - -

What, in particular, in what I had posted are you taking issue with?

 

No they can't You must find enumerations to allow POWERS. There are no enumerations which allow welfare.

Article 1, Section 8 states the following in part:

The Congress shall have power to ... provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States...
​

Then goes on to enumerate POWERS for BOTH the "common defense" AND the "general welfare." You may not agree that it is providing for the "general welfare" of the United States "To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting" but that is irreverent...

The Tenth Amendment outlaws any power that is not literally "enumerated" in the Constitution which makes unconstitutional and illegal Social Security, Welfare to the poor, Obamacare, HUD, really just about all Democrat "gifts" to this society, gifts Democrats MAKE us all pay for at the point-of-a-gun!

AMENDMENT X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.​

 

why would specific welfare social programs not be in the class of social programs that are meant to provide for the general welfare.

 

Because they are not enumerated in Article 1, Section 8 or any of the Amendments (anywhere in the Constitution).

See for yourself. Follow the link below and see that there are specific enumerations to provide for the common defense AND general welfare, which do not include "give away programs for the poor," but does include creating a Post Office, which is good for all.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlei#section8




- - - Updated - - -

The Constitution does not provide for ANY "social programs."

 

The amendments that you cite don't stop the Government from enacting laws to help the people. Congress is the voice of the people. Social Security, and other programs, were voted on by the then-current representatives of the people. Representatives who were voted in by election and everything. The welfare programs stand as they are for the people. Just because Social security isn't listed in the Constitution doesn't mean you can take it away from me. As long as the Social Security and Medicare/aid programs exist they are a right retained by the people. You cannot deny me that right by tossing around the term enumeration. Remember what the 9th amendment says?

The original Constitution might not have had a definition of general welfare in 1780s-90s that is compatible with our welfare programs today, but after the ravages of unchecked capitalism, through the 19th and 20th centuries, things that threatened the general welfare of the people. Leaving many poor, or as hobos, the whole society was on the brink of ruin. That's an example of how the general welfare requires some form of intervention. And here that intervention takes the form of our welfare programs which help blunt the sharp edges of unchecked capitalism.

 

The "People" and the Government are different, and the Constitution was wrttten to limit GOVERNMENT, not Individual Liberty. What does the Tenth Amendment Limit if it is to limit GOVERNMENT POWERS?

AMENDMENT X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
​

You lost the debate when you wrote, "The original Constitution might not have had a definition of general welfare in 1780s-90s that is compatible with our welfare programs today." If you don't LIKE what the Constitution says leaglly amend it...

 

Ravages of capitalism...haha. That is public school indoctrination for you. Please tell me what time prior to that more people were lifted out of poverty. Specifically. Name a time since the war on poverty that fewer people have been lifted out of poverty in our country.

If you can't then please realize all the leftist BS you were fed is just that.

 

We don't change the Constitution with amendments anymore, not since the Prohibition debacle, partly because doing so has become dangerous because it can take rights away and it's very hard to remove such amendments once they are declared. But also because we preserve the Constitution the way that it is and don't burden it down with a million amendments. It's just silly to make the effort of using an amendment when a law would do. Congress' job is making laws not just amendments if the Constitution were really that limiting why did they create a Senate at all? Using laws to change our country is much safer regarding the people's rights, easier to implement, and easier to repeal a bad one.

 

Laws that don't derive their power from the Constitution's enumerated powers, or that which the federal government is authorized to do are illegal. If the federal government had the POWER to outlaw alcohol without an amendment why did they need to get one? How can Obamacare be legal without an amendment when one was needed for prohibition? Under what POWER in the Constitution can Obamacare be crated?

What? The Senate IS PART of Congress...

 

I don't know what you're trying to say with this. There can't be examples of fewer people in need if the population is growing all the time, and at a rapid rate.

This "public school indoctrination" you mention is known by a more common name: History. The communist rebellion that would shape much of the 20th century was directly caused by the ravages of unchecked capitalism in the previous two centuries.

So tell me how much prosperity there was when children were being used to replace slave labor on the farm, in the mines, and locked up in factories (Child Labor in U.S. History)?

Or, tell me why there were squatter settlements and hobos before welfare programs? Funny how they just disappeared in the decades following the Great Depression...

How about those old times when there wasn't a minimum wage, or when your financial assets were lost forever if a bank closed, was robbed, or the stock market tumbled? How prosperous was that?

What about those self-made millionaire politicians today who got government assistance earlier in their lives. They wouldn't have made it out of the drug filled slums if they were born a few centuries ago, especially if they were living in Europe or China. Times were tough back then.

 

Where I said Senate I meant to say Congress there. I just slipped up on the word and used the wrong one. It doesn't matter, you can't use that to dismiss my point.

On Prohibition, They used the Constitutional Amendment for alcohol because the morality police were in charge and they didn't want anyone to challenge the prohibition. Liberty can be suspended if the Constitution demands it. That's part of the danger of using Constitutional amendments.

The Affordable Care Act is legal because it's the law. The process of making a law is clear: a bill goes through Congress and then to the President to sign or veto. And, the Judicial branch even weighed in on the Affordable Care Act, as is there job, and what remains of the Affordable Care Act has been ruled Constitutional, and can be considered as such. We can agree on this point, right? It's in the Constitution. Why did the Constitution give Congress the ability to legislate if they were never, ever going to be allowed to craft a law? Society needs laws, and those laws need to change over time as society changes -- it's not one size fits all.

 

Why do you believe providing for the social goodness of the general welfare, would not be accomplished through social programs?

 

Where did you learn this stuff? In school? A public school? A college perhaps? How much were you charged?

What point? You have made no points. The federal government derives its power FROM the Constitution which specifically was written to LIMIT federal power, a historical fact most learn in school…

That's right as people have liberty that is unalienable that can't be taken away. No one jumps through all the intended "hoops" to get a legal constitutional amendment if one is not needed. Are you arguing one was gotten for prohibition for the "fun of it?" One was gotten because Democrats had not yet threatened the Supreme Court so they would stop ruling Democrat programs unconstitutional one law at a time (Goggle the "Switch in Time that Saved Nine!" ).

World it be legal to impression people with red hair if the "law" was passed by Congress and signed by the President? What is the difference between a democracy and a Constitutional Republic? Do you know? Perhaps you should study up…

Under what grounds is Obamacare Constitutional? Justice Roberts doesn't even know if you read any of his opinion of the case… Why is Obamacare permissible when Prohibition was not without a Constitutional Amendment? Supreme Court justices are to "interpret" the Constitution.

in•ter•pret [in-tur-prit]

verb (used with object)
1. to give or provide the meaning of; explain; explicate; elucidate: to interpret the hidden meaning of a parable.

2. to construe or understand in a particular way: to interpret a reply as favorable.

3. to bring out the meaning of (a dramatic work, music, etc.) by performance or execution.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/interpret?o=100084&qsrc=2894&l=dir​

The Supreme Court does not get to MAKE UP the meaning. The MEANING was made up by the Founders. IF YOU write something who gets to decide what YOU meant, you or others reading your words? Really, who?

Congress can "craft" all the laws they like for that witch they are constitutionally responsible. Do you have a "right" to buy a green car? Can Congress outlaw green cars? IS buying something "freedom of speech?"

 

First off, the Constitution grants no POWER to the federal government for ANY wealth distribution programs. Second of all, We the People have a RIGHT to say to whom we "give" our money. Perhaps some would rather give money to someone who has actually had "bad luck" instead of lazy drug addicts who refuse to work. The federal government makes no distinction. Who are Progressives to FORCE anyone to fund THEIR view of Utopia?

What do Democrats do to "secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity?"

 

Do we the people have the right to not starve to death, or to not die from preventable health hazards due to inability to pay for medical costs?

 

Providing for the general welfare implies income redistribution; only the right doesn't recognize it as that form of socialism arising from that delegated, social Power.

 

Sorry but you are wrong. Democrats could have called "Welfare" "aid to the poor" but that would not have been found in the Constitution and therefore Democrats could not have fooled their "Useful Idiots" in believing what they were doing was somehow Constitutional, so they stole the term "Welfare" and redefined the word using generations of propaganda that you have apparently swallowed whole.

The Constitutional Dictionary

This document contains words, phrases, and concepts used in the United States Constitution. Links to this document can be found on the U.S. Constitution Page. Note that some words are defined only as they apply to the Constitution itself. You may also wish to see the Popular Names Page, the Notes Page, and the Advanced Topics Page.

Welfare
welfare n. 1. health, happiness, or prosperity; well-being. [<ME wel faren, to fare well] Source: AHD

Welfare in today's context (or has COME TO MEAN after Democrats threatened the Supreme Court in 1937 so they would stop ruling the Democrat New Deal Unconstitutional, Google the "Switch in Time that Saved Nine!") also means organized efforts on the part of public or private organizations to benefit the poor, or simply public assistance. This is not the meaning of the word as used in the Constitution.​

Why would you state something that is not true? Who you trying to fool?

 

Promoting the general welfare implies providing for the general prosperity even if it may require income redistribution to accomplish that end. The same with the common defense, but not necessarily or properly the common offense if our federal Congress cannot justify the wartime tax rates that would justify it.

 

So essentially a property tax.
I'm not sure what an infrastructure tax is or how you would determine it.
And an extraction tax, which most of the world uses, not the US, petroleum lobby and all that.

You just raised taxes on the wealthy, BRAVO.

 

I applaud thinking outside the box, but the rationale is thoroughly lacking.

1) The idea that "the poor fight the wars and so the rich should foot the bill" is false, and the logic has many implications. I served with many a rich bastard, but it's true that rich men make up a smaller portion of the military than they do of society... And? The same applies of women, gays, Muslims, Asians, Jews. So what? Should we tax people by category more for the national defense? That's absurd. Levy the tax flatly, and the rich will still pay the lion's share without being stupidly targeted.
2) The idea of the 'infrastructure tax' has already been fixed in and paid. Suppose that a company doubles it's incomes by moving to an area where the infrastructure's been thoroughly developed by the government [not really ever the case, but just for argument's sake]. Does the business not pay twice as much in taxes? Some of these businesses paid the lion's share of infrastructure development in their communities, and now you want to tax them specifically for the benefit they receive for it, after they paid for it and then paid taxes on their increased earnings afterward? Stupid cases like GE could easily be solved by simply instituting flat taxes.
3) "Reimburse the people for the loss of mineral wealth" only holds through logically if we're talking about drilling on public land, in which case I'd agree with you. But no one owes a debt to "the people" (by which you really mean the government, not the people) for depleting resources on their own land. That's just silly. As for logging, again, it's on private land, and with the increasingly rare exception of creating farmland, woodlands are replenished by the owners. It's a recurring natural resource and it's in the private business' interest to ensure that trees are replanted and reach maturity. Next you'll be telling us that we need a resource depletion tax on wheat harvests.