Thread: Progressive taxation and the 14th amendment

Originally Posted by BleedingHeadKen

One chooses to play or not play monopoly. There is no coercion involved and there are no rights being interfered with. In fact, there is no real jail; it's just a piece of metal or plastic that "sits" in the jail, not the person playing the game. When it comes to government, there is no choice, so one cannot voluntarily agree to the terms. One is forced to go along with the dictates of government or be punished.

You're not forced to play. Most likely your parents, acting as your legal agents, chose to make you a U.S. citizen. Through their representation you joined the game. You're welcome to leave it at any time. But while you play, you're subject to the rules of the game just like the rest of us. You want to get out, you're subject to the exit clause, but you're welcome to leave. You regret joining the game? Blame mom and dad.

Look, I don't like many of the rules myself. I agree the IRS acts like a group of thugs and I think many of our partners in this game are abusing the rules of the game. But, for now, I'm better off being a U.S. citizen than not -- so I keep playing. I'm happy to work with you to try and change those rules and eliminate some of the unfairness in them, but it's silly for either of us to pretend the rules don't exist or to argue we aren't choosing to stay citizens of this nation.

Originally Posted by Taxpayer

You're not forced to play. Most likely your parents, acting as your legal agents, chose to make you a U.S. citizen. Through their representation you joined the game. You're welcome to leave it at any time. But while you play, you're subject to the rules of the game just like the rest of us. You want to get out, you're subject to the exit clause, but you're welcome to leave. You regret joining the game? Blame mom and dad.

What many fail to understand is that government in the United States is based upon contract law and that our government is, for all intent and purposes, a corporation and that the citizens are the stockholders in that corporation. We need to go back to the very roots of the origins of government to understand that.

From the very beginning of the settling of America by Europeans those that came here created pacts, or contracts, with each other. They formed small community governments and established rules (laws) that were a part of a contract between themselves. Those local communities eventually merged to form colonies which then, based upon the American Revolution, became states. The States are the direct corporations that the People are stockholders in and the contracts are the State Constitutions. The United States government was a corporate entity created by the States and it's corporate charter is the US Constitution. It established the agreed to commonalities between all of the individual States (corporations) as well as being assigned roles and responsibilities that each of the States had an obligation to fulfill under their individual State Charters (State Constitutions).

In spite of uninformed opinions the US government is NOT the government of the People. The State governments are the governments of the People. The US government is the government of the States. The States, not the People, have ultimate control over the Corporate Charter of the United States (i.e. the US Constitution) and can modify or even abolish the US government if the States choose to do so under Article V of the Contract (US Constitution). If 2/3rds of the States call for a Constitutional Convention and 3/4ths State agree then they can abolish the United States tomorrow and there is nothing that the US government can do to prevent that from happening.

When our ancestors came to the United States and became citizens they became the stockholders in the corporations that are the individual States. They did so voluntarily. We, as their heirs, are automatically stockholders in these corporate entities. We can change the corporate charters (State Constitutions) based upon the rules that were voluntarily agreed to in the contract.

Yes, we as individuals can by choice give up our ownership of the corporation at any time simply by leaving. We stay members because we voluntarily choose to be stockholders. No one forces us to do that but we voluntarily accept that we're the hereditary stockholders in the corporation because of the benefits of being a stockholder.

Originally Posted by Taxpayer

Look, I don't like many of the rules myself. I agree the IRS acts like a group of thugs and I think many of our partners in this game are abusing the rules of the game. But, for now, I'm better off being a U.S. citizen than not -- so I keep playing. I'm happy to work with you to try and change those rules and eliminate some of the unfairness in them, but it's silly for either of us to pretend the rules don't exist or to argue we aren't choosing to stay citizens of this nation.

Here is the rub. In many respects our government (corporate entities) are not abiding by the contracts (i.e. State Constitution and US Constitution). Based upon contract law the corporation we're stockholders in (i.e the State Constitution) is only authorized to do that which we, the stockholders, have delegated to it under the contract. The States (corporations) can only delegate those roles and responsibilities we have authorized to it to the corporate entity it has created. By way of example I can contract an auto repair shop to fix the brakes on my car. Several auto repair shops can get together and form a corporation that does machining to machine the brake rotors because all of them require rotors to be machined. The auto repair shop can subcontract work to the machine shop that they jointly own with other machine shops. They cannot remove the engine from my car and send that to the machine shop to have the cylinders bored and rebuild my enginer because I've never contracted that work to the auto repair shop even if my engine requires rebuilding!

What we have is many roles and responsibilities being assumed by the "corporations" (i.e. State and Federal government) where the People have never delegated that role and responsibility to the corporationt they are stockholderes in (i.e. the State government). Social Security and Medicare are prime examples of this. If we, the People, don't delegate the role and responsibility to our State governments to provide for retirement, disability, survivor and medical benefits then the State cannot provide these. If the States cannot provide these under their corporate charters (i.e. State Constitutions) then the US government has no authority to provide them and, in fact, it would violate contract law for the States to modify the US government contract (i.e. US Constitution) to provide these benefits that the People have never authorized.

This is where Libertarians point out the truth because we have a violation of Contract law being committed by our government.

This applies to so many things related to our government that it boggles the mind sometimes. We can look at "money" and the People never authorized the creation of money. We did, at one time, authorize the States to coin money (coining money is not creating money but instead it is making "coins" out of metal) but that created problems so the States under the US Constitution in Article I Section 8 delegated that role to the US government. This was to ensure that gold, silver and copper coins were uniform containing the same amount of "money" (which is the gold, silver and copper) and that these coins were certified by the government. The government cannot create money because it cannot create gold, silver and copper. It can only coin money and that is what the US Constitution authorizes. When it coins money those coins become "legal tender" but Americans are not prohibited from using money that is not legal tender in the United States. We can, for example, accept gold Canadian Maple Leafs that are lawful money but not legal tender in the United State when conducting business. There is no law prohibiting this.

So we literally have hundreds of violations of contract law related to our government. Those are issues we need to address first and foremost. If we simply followed contract law many of the problems we face today would resolve themselves. So how do we force our government to follow contract law in it's actions when the Supreme Court, a part of the government, is not enforcing it?

This is the root problem that the libertarian faces.

Originally Posted by BleedingHeadKen

Why don't I have this right? Explain this principle of rights that you hold in which you can determine, objectively, what I have a right to do and what I don't have a right to do.

We all give up some rights to live in a civilized society.

Government is not society, so I will not conflate the two as you do. I know that there are consequences to violating the dictates of the political class, just as I know that there are consequences to violating the rules of the local mafia or other gang that exists in my neighborhood. It does not automatically follow that because there are consequences that I have "no right" to violate them. I have the right to do whatever I want so long as I don't interfere with the rights of others; and others have the same right to do what they want so long as it doesn't interfere with my rights.

Your opinions as to what rights you should have does not define what rights you do you.

You have no right to force consequences on me for violating the dictates of the political class.

OK. Never said I did.

So then your principle of human interaction is that might is right. I'm not surprised at that.

To the contrary. I advocate for a rule of law.

Why does some entity have to decide anything?

Some entity has to make the rules.

Through the application of logic and reasoning.

OK. Whose logic and reasoning?

A right which imposes an obligation for positive action means that anyone can view any preference as a right that is unalienable. This would be difficult, because if you change your mind, does that mean the right is no long unalienable? How could that be, since such a right cannot be given away by any means? If you can impose an obligation on others to make your right a reality, then you are imposing a form of slavery, because you are insisting that others *must* form the government you deem reasonable even if they insist on their right to not work at all. Unalienable rights can hardly have precedence, or they are alienable in favor of another right. So, either people have an unalienable right not to produce, or they are violating your unalienable right to force them to work in order to support your reasonable government. Such contradiction are the nature of a subjective view of principles.

LIving in an ordered society requires that its member give up a level of "rights" to permit and ordered society. The alternative is anarchy, which devolves into "might is right".

So how do we arrive at an ethic from which the political control of human action can be determined to be right or wrong? That's the natural rights ethics, which derive from the fact of self-ownership. Since you own your self, then any interference with anything you do is interference with that self-ownership. I cannot rightfully force you to produce on my behalf because that violates your self ownership and you have done nothing to interfere with my rights so I have no claim on you.

Production is not a function of the self. It at lease involves use of resources, and frequently the efforts of other "selfs".

Originally Posted by BullsLawDan

You have the right to vote. Whether you choose to exercise that right is irrelevant.

I'd call it a privilege, as the government may withdraw that so-called "right" at any time or for any reason should it deem it appropriate.

They didn't have the option to accept. And yes, if they were given the option to vote for the overseer, or not vote and leave, yes, that would take away the slavery.

What does it matter if they didn't have the option to accept? No one has the option to accept the government that claims jursidiction over him, and the land on which he resides.

I never said anything about leaving. Just choosing the overseer.

Irrelevant, since we're not talking about a contract in which consent cannot be withdrawn.

Then it's not a valid contract.

You are free to leave the country at any time, and when you get to another place, provided that place will take you, you can go to the U.S. Embassy or consulate and renounce your citizenship. Done deal.

This assumes that I must accept the validity of the claims of the US government over my land.

And, it's not so easy to leave. There are a number of reasons that the government can prevent someone from leaving, and those reasons are increasing in number. One cannot "leave at any time" if one is incarcerated for violating a statute that prohibits an otherwise peaceful activity.

Because those things came about in part because of your acceptance of the contract.

Where is this alleged acceptance? Just because people talk about "social contracts" as a way to grant legitimacy to the rule of some over others does not make it something that actually exists.

You own your property because society has set up police forces and laws to stop someone else from taking it by force. Same with your job and your income. Drop the internet machismo for a moment and realize that the only reason you have anything is because you don't have to sit on your front porch armed to the teeth 24/7 to defend it from the next stronger guy to come along.

I see, so it's your claim that property exists because of government. That's a difficult claim to prove, since there have been many examples of places where people controlled property and used systems of law but did not have a government entity with a monopoly on the legal use of force.

Police forces are a relatively new invention and the government police do not protect property, they enforce the rules created by the political class. They'll gladly seize property on behalf of the state if one of those rules is violated.

There's no internet machismo here. Drop the ad hominem. I'm expressing my principled views. If you don't like it, you don't have to engage in the conversation.

Yes, obviously, some terms of a partnership agreement remain enforceable, like for example the requirement that you provide for your children. Or, if you owe the partnership contributions for the time during which you were still a partner.

And yet the association is ended, and only the terms for which there was consideration given with consent between both parties remain enforceable. Not that the marriage laws are a true contract as they are often used to force people to remain in association prior to separation. Still, neither party is forced to give up all associations, property, freedom to travel, etc. as you would demand of those who want to end your so-called contract with the state.

Some basic understanding of how contracts work would really benefit you.

This from someone who believes in a mythological social contract.

There is no "the state." That's what you're missing. "The state" is us.

Not it's not. Some basic understanding of how the state works would really benefit you.

We have decided as a collective that (1) certain rights are inalienable no matter how many people vote for them, i.e. freedom of speech, and that (2) certain other rights, like the "right" to not pay taxes, we cede to the state in a manner in which a majority of the people think is best.

None of these were decided as a collective. The collective "we" is a fiction. It's just rhetoric, and not even very good rhetoric. It's an attempt to force those who disagree with you into accepting your argument. However, any intelligent person can determine whether or not he or she has "decided" such a thing, or, has changed his or her mind.

To act as though there is no benefit to collective action in some form is simply childish.

You're getting desperate now.

A person leaving a firm gives up all of the rights he had when a member of that firm - the right to share in the profits, the right to the parking space and office space, the right to share in the "goodwill" of the business, hell, the right to even enter the building.

And, yet, one doesn't give up the right to associate with members of the firm. One doesn't have to pay to the firm a share of one's earnings after one leaves because the firm demands it. The firm does not declare jurisdiction over everything the former employee owns, including the right to kidnap and incarcerate him for violating any of its rules. It's sole option is terminate the relationship

See above. A party leaving any contract gives up the benefits of that contract. This is not unique to the social contract.

Except, of course, there is no social contract.

It's not arbitrary. It's the area of land that we as a collective have been able to take and hold against other collectives, through use of our collective "spear" known as the U.S. military and our collective "olive branch" of U.S. diplomacy.

Why should that matter to anyone?

You make the choice to accept the benefits every day.

Just as a slave makes the choice to accept the food and shelter from his master every day. Sometimes, there is little choice. This does not equate to consent to all that the state, or the master, demands.

Huh? Of course it can. That is what contracts do by their very nature. You cede something you have a right to, in exchange for something another party has a right to.

Right, an exchange of title, which one owns, for title, which the other party owns. Or for labor.

If you sat in on the first three weeks of contract law at any decent law school you'd realize how silly this whole argument is.

That the state recognizes many options one may contract to does not make those options just.

Who says it's arbitrated solely by one party?

So now you are saying that there is a third party which can oversee the terms of the mythical social contract? Who, pray tell, do you claim that to be?

Being frank here, the only rights one has are those which they can enforce. That is the essence of nature. The gazelle has a "right" to life right up until the second the lion decides it has a "right" to eat lunch.

Right, so you hold that might is right. I'm fine that you have that view, but why not be more clear about it from the start? The social contract is pointless, since the state determines right from wrong for you. The whole rant about "the collective we" deciding anything is just fluff, since the state has the guns and the state has the police forces to enforce whatever rules it creates, and that is right by virtue of the power it has.

What we have done as a society, the society you ironically seek to reject, is to say that all people SHOULD have some "inalienable" rights, individual rights which are protected by the collective.

That's a strawman. I do not equate society with government. You imply that there can be no society without government, which is just absurd.

Again, the comforts which are provided to you by the social contract, which you continue to accept. Likely, you would not even exist if it were not for the social contract, because there's a reasonably good chance at least one of your ancestors has been protected by society.

Lots of people say the same thing about a creator Sky-daddy and his son Jebus. Some say it's pink unicorns. In many cases, my ancestors, and probably yours, were killed by "society" in fruitless wars to enrich the plutocracy. Since you hold that might is right, you can have no moral claim against that.

Originally Posted by Taxpayer

[INDENT]You're not forced to play. Most likely your parents, acting as your legal agents, chose to make you a U.S. citizen. Through their representation you joined the game. You're welcome to leave it at any time. But while you play, you're subject to the rules of the game just like the rest of us. You want to get out, you're subject to the exit clause, but you're welcome to leave. You regret joining the game? Blame mom and dad.

Not forced to play? Of course we are forced to play. The state can do nothing but use force. It exists by threatening force against any that oppose it, or who break and of its rules. That you can escape from its clutches, and that it currently allows some people to do so is not the same as "quitting a game."

Given that one's birth location and alleged agreement to live under the rules of the state under which one was born, what actions by the state do you believe are objectively wrong and how do you go about determining right and wrong when it comes to human interaction?

I've given my principles for human action and why the state violates them regularly and therefore is an immoral entity to which I do no consent regardless of whether or not this "social contract" exists. Now give your logical basis for the existence of a social contract which created the state (the Federal government) under which we live. You might want to look up Rhode Island, which did not go along with the new Constitution was forced to do play anyway.

Look, I don't like many of the rules myself. I agree the IRS acts like a group of thugs and I think many of our partners in this game are abusing the rules of the game. But, for now, I'm better off being a U.S. citizen than not -- so I keep playing. I'm happy to work with you to try and change those rules and eliminate some of the unfairness in them, but it's silly for either of us to pretend the rules don't exist or to argue we aren't choosing to stay citizens of this nation.

It's not silly to argue that the rules, and the rulemakers, are immoral. I've never argued that the rules don't exist. They are written down on paper and the government arms a good number of people to enforce them. If you mean the "social contract", well, I'd call that a myth. Just saying it exists does not make it so. A contract is a mutually beneficial exchange of property. When I want something from you, I offer you something of mine, and you decide if that's more valuable to you than what it is that I want. If it's good for you, then we contract to make the exchange. The state, on the other hand, does not take by contract. It can take your property, your time, your property, etc. for any reason that it deems necessary or desirable, and give you nothing in return. That you get something in return is not a consideration for what you give in return, it's to obtain your obedience.

Originally Posted by Shiva_TD

What many fail to understand is that government in the United States is based upon contract law and that our government is, for all intent and purposes, a corporation and that the citizens are the stockholders in that corporation. We need to go back to the very roots of the origins of government to understand that.

Which roots? Of the United States? How many people were in favor of the Constitution, which you mistakenly refer to as a contract? Which state refused to ratify the Constitution and was threatened with blockade and invasion in what really is the first act of US imperialism? That doesn't sound like a voluntary acceptance of a contract. Any court in the land would nullify any paper I told you to sign while holding a gun to your head.

When a large portion of those alleged stockholders tried to leave, hundreds of thousands were murdered, their cities burned and an entire generation lost to rebuilding in the aftermath. The "stockholders" who tried to object were arrested and incarcerated by the "CEO" and many of them hanged or exiled.

I can think of no type of corporation that can enslave the stockholders and send them to fight other corporations, many of them to die or be maimed and have their lives brutally shortened, on behalf of the executives in the corporation and their favored vendors. I can think of no type of corporation which can tell stockholders what they may or may not do in their own lives, whether it marry someone of a different race, or the same gender, or ingest a plant substance, or start a business that competes with one of the favored vendors of the corporation.

Really, your analogy just falls apart when trying to make the analogous into a truth.

When our ancestors came to the United States and became citizens they became the stockholders in the corporations that are the individual States. They did so voluntarily. We, as their heirs, are automatically stockholders in these corporate entities. We can change the corporate charters (State Constitutions) based upon the rules that were voluntarily agreed to in the contract.

They didn't do so voluntarily. They came to the US because it was relatively free, it did not get in the way of starting businesses and seeking opportunity. You claim they came here to be owned by other stockholders and the corporate executive branch that controls everything. That's patently absurd. Why leave oppression if you are only going to be oppressed?

The idea that we are stockholders in a corporation and that stockholders can vote to oppress and disenfranchise some other stockholders who have harmed nobody should get the hackles up of anyone who claims to care about liberty.

The US government is an immoral entity. The Constitution has no authority. The government maintains police in order to exact obedience, and those of us who submit to it do so for their own good reasons. Just because you don't disagree with those reasons doesn't mean you get to tell us that we think differently than we do.

Yes, we as individuals can by choice give up our ownership of the corporation at any time simply by leaving. We stay members because we voluntarily choose to be stockholders. No one forces us to do that but we voluntarily accept that we're the hereditary stockholders in the corporation because of the benefits of being a stockholder.

People stay because they own land, have family, start businesses, they build a life here. There's no right by the "corporate executive" to withdraw those things simply because one does not want to share in the glorious corporation.

This is where Libertarians point out the truth because we have a violation of Contract law being committed by our government.

Not all libertarians are constitutionalists. Far from it. The Constitution is not a libertarian document. I will agree, that were the government limited to a very small Constitutional role, most libertarians would get on with the business of doing business and not worrying so much about the ever growing police state leviathan.

Originally Posted by webrockk

A conversation in one of the "Buffett Rule" threads Krauthammer blows up Obama and the FOLLY of "The Buffett Rule" inspired my quoted comment below and this thread.


I'm looking for a logical, simplistic...(I'm thick, so I repeat "logical, simplistic"...not "because congress and the SCOTUS said so") argument from our members who are far more adept in constitutional matters than I, as to how, in light of the 14th, progressive taxation can be considered constitutional.




Begin

This is great! I was just pondering this question a couple days ago myself, and actually made a statement to my wife that when I get my law degree I would love for my first case to be about exactly this. So bear in mind, I am 100% on board with you. I believe that the Progressive Income Tax violates the Equal Protection Clause. But I will take a stab at what the other side would say, namely those in favor of the PIT. I believe they would say that the PIT does not tax individuals at all. Rather, it taxes incomes. So the argument goes that an income of $250,000 annually is taxed the same for each and every citizen. I personally make nowhere near $250,000. But if I were to, it would be taxed at the same rate as those who do (Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, Mitt Romney, etc.) I personally think that that argument is a crock, but I suspect that is the argument those in favor of the PIT would advance (although realistically, those on the Left don't care one iota about the Constitution, which is why they have repeatedly called the Individual Mandate a penalty, despite the fact that the Court said it is constitutional if and only if it is a tax, they are saying that their law is explicitly not constitutional, they just don't care.)

But there's another point that I haven't heard anyone raise, that ties in with the PIT and the Equal Protection Clause. Almost all Left-Wing pundits and politicians have been arguing that their proposed tax plan is great because it only affects approximately 2-3% of the population. Well, you know what other group is approximately 2-3% of the population? Homosexuals. So as far as I can gather, the DNCPUSA thinks there would be absolutely nothing wrong with taxing homosexuals, or any minority group, just because they are minorities. But is it really any surprise that the Party of Jim Crow and of slavery feels it is okay to single out and persecute minorities?

Originally Posted by SGTKPF

This is great! I was just pondering this question a couple days ago myself, and actually made a statement to my wife that when I get my law degree I would love for my first case to be about exactly this. So bear in mind, I am 100% on board with you. I believe that the Progressive Income Tax violates the Equal Protection Clause. But I will take a stab at what the other side would say, namely those in favor of the PIT. I believe they would say that the PIT does not tax individuals at all. Rather, it taxes incomes. So the argument goes that an income of $250,000 annually is taxed the same for each and every citizen. I personally make nowhere near $250,000. But if I were to, it would be taxed at the same rate as those who do (Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, Mitt Romney, etc.) I personally think that that argument is a crock, but I suspect that is the argument those in favor of the PIT would advance (although realistically, those on the Left don't care one iota about the Constitution, which is why they have repeatedly called the Individual Mandate a penalty, despite the fact that the Court said it is constitutional if and only if it is a tax, they are saying that their law is explicitly not constitutional, they just don't care.)

Of course it's a crock. If it were just incomes, then each income would be taxed separately, but someone who earns $100,000 from one job, and $10,000 from another is taxed on a total of $110,000 rather than separately.

Originally Posted by SGTKPF

This is great! I was just pondering this question a couple days ago myself, and actually made a statement to my wife that when I get my law degree I would love for my first case to be about exactly this. So bear in mind, I am 100% on board with you. I believe that the Progressive Income Tax violates the Equal Protection Clause. But I will take a stab at what the other side would say, namely those in favor of the PIT. I believe they would say that the PIT does not tax individuals at all. Rather, it taxes incomes. So the argument goes that an income of $250,000 annually is taxed the same for each and every citizen. I personally make nowhere near $250,000. But if I were to, it would be taxed at the same rate as those who do (Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, Mitt Romney, etc.) I personally think that that argument is a crock, but I suspect that is the argument those in favor of the PIT would advance (although realistically, those on the Left don't care one iota about the Constitution, which is why they have repeatedly called the Individual Mandate a penalty, despite the fact that the Court said it is constitutional if and only if it is a tax, they are saying that their law is explicitly not constitutional, they just don't care.)

But there's another point that I haven't heard anyone raise, that ties in with the PIT and the Equal Protection Clause. Almost all Left-Wing pundits and politicians have been arguing that their proposed tax plan is great because it only affects approximately 2-3% of the population. Well, you know what other group is approximately 2-3% of the population? Homosexuals. So as far as I can gather, the DNCPUSA thinks there would be absolutely nothing wrong with taxing homosexuals, or any minority group, just because they are minorities. But is it really any surprise that the Party of Jim Crow and of slavery feels it is okay to single out and persecute minorities?

Though I cannot find the words "similarly situated" (seperate but equal) anywhere in the 14th amendment, section 1's "equal protection clause", collectivists have somehow "interpreted" it in there in regards to income.

Originally Posted by webrockk

A conversation in one of the "Buffett Rule" threads Krauthammer blows up Obama and the FOLLY of "The Buffett Rule" inspired my quoted comment below and this thread.


I'm looking for a logical, simplistic...(I'm thick, so I repeat "logical, simplistic"...not "because congress and the SCOTUS said so") argument from our members who are far more adept in constitutional matters than I, as to how, in light of the 14th, progressive taxation can be considered constitutional.




Begin

It sounds to me like you have a point. The income tax is a direct tax, and citizens are being treated differently based on their income. I think, however, the fair argument is that regardless of who you are, you will pay x taxes with y income, assuming you have no special deductions.