End the Income Tax

a reply to: o0oTOPCATo0o

It's the way that they tax that is unconstitutional, not the tax itself.

Thank you! Yes!!!

Very well said... wish I had

a reply to: intrptr

Did I read here somewhere if stock sales were charged one penny per sale on Wall Street the national debt would vanish?

It's a lie.

Any kind of tax like that would hit the middle class the hardest.

And everyone with an IRA,401k or any other retirement account.

It would also effect millions of pensioners that have those funds invested there.

On top of the capital gains tax which has been raised.

On top of the capital gains medicare surtax.

Between pay roll taxes.

Between the income taxes.

That's quadruple taxation.

originally posted by: o0oTOPCATo0o

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: o0oTOPCATo0o
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Because working a job and getting paid for it, is not income.
It's an even trade.
You trade your time, skills and talent for a fair wage.

Ok... And? Planning on finishing that thought?

Sure..
It's the way that they tax that is unconstitutional, not the tax itself.
I'm basically saying that your wages from your job should not be considered "Income"

Why not? It clearly IS income, so what legalize are trying to pitch me to suggest it isn't?

a reply to: Boadicea

Nope. Didn't do that all. In fact, I did exactly the opposite, focusing on our organic law, not an organic law. I'm not the one creating the strawman, replacing our well-established and defined organic law with a vague and general definition of organic law. I'm not speaking to any other nation except this one.

What are you talking about? I've only ever BEEN talking about the US' organic law. I'm not talking about the vague notion of an organic law. This is why I'm accusing you of strawmaning me. So if you aren't doing that then you have failed to understand my point.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Again, you quoted the general definition of "organic law." Not relevant when we have a specific, well-defined and established law organic law, which I quoted.

a reply to: Boadicea

Yes, but I've also written many sentences and paragraphs elucidating my point further. Try reading them as well.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I read every word.

And I'm done now.

a reply to: Boadicea

Then why do you keep talking to me about an organic law when I've told you several times now AND even suggested in words you quoted me that I was talking about the US' organic law? WHY do you keep arguing otherwise?

Go ahead, get offended for calling you out for strawmaning me. I don't care; I'm already entitled to be pissed off at you for not trying to attempt to understand my words and choosing to argue about something else instead. Here's my words again:

So you either don't know what "organic law" means or you are misusing the term, because the 16th Amendment (for the third time now) is part of the Constitution. This in turn makes it PART of the country's organic law.

Whenever you decide to grow some thicker skin and get over it, I'll be here waiting for a better argument from you than what you've been giving me.

a reply to: neo96

I think you misunderstood. The penny surcharge would be applied to trading on Walls Street, not the people.

Anyway there were threads here, kindly point out where that was debunked?

a reply to: intrptr

There is no misunderstanding.

Every time a trade gets placed there already is a charge for it.

Cost depends on brokerage.

My Brokerage is Td Ameritrade.

I pay $6.95 upfront before I make a dime.

I pay a sell fee for another $6.95.

Which means regardless of profit I'm out fees.

On top of TAXES.

a reply to: neo96

There is no misunderstanding.

But no link.

Thanks anyway.

It doesn't matter what you pay in taxes. What does matter is the purchasing power of your take home pay. If they end income tax tomorrow it will not make any difference. The cartels and monopolies will just raise prices to suck up any slack in the economy to the greedy CEOs.

originally posted by: dfnj2015
It doesn't matter what you pay in taxes. What does matter is the purchasing power of your take home pay. If they end income tax tomorrow it will not make any difference. The cartels and monopolies will just raise prices to suck up any slack in the economy to the greedy CEOs.

Your point is well taken. Eliminating the personal income tax alone won't address the myriad of problems we're facing. And that is why I think we also need to level the playing field for corporations, eliminating the many loopholes and credits and deductions that benefit some and not others. And in leveling the playing field, we are once again letting the consumer regulate the market. In the final analysis, the consumer pays even the corporate tax; but through the tax code and corporate welfare and regulatory capture, so does the taxpayer, with the govt picking the winners and losers in the market... not the consumers. It's the government granted entitlements and privileges to many corporations that gives those corporations that kind of power over the market and over us. It's basically a return to the free market.

Another take from Ron Paul regarding what he calls the un-American income tax.

Myth-Busters: The Un-American Income Tax

He mentions the control it gives government over the people, as well as that it's only needed to fund big guv and the military industrial complex.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Just what I said before.
It's an even trade. My service/goods for your money.

This will explain it better than I ever could.

As originally written, the income tax laws did not attempt to tax the common worker or the wages and salaries received in exchange for the products derived from that labor. Common sense dictates that the wages and salaries of common workers could not have been the subject of the income tax laws. The entire reform movement of enacting an income tax was to tax the unearned incomes of the rich and the profits and gains of corporations and trusts, not the remunerative wages and salaries of the common worker. Had the latter been the case there would have been instantaneous revolt. The reformers of that day wanted to tax rich businessmen, not workers. Some people will note that the tax acts of 1861–1864 did indeed tax wages and salaries. But one also must recognize the unique situation of the day and perceived crisis that created a climate for such abuse. During a time of war few people are going to resist and fight such legislation. Legislators knew they were imposing a direct tax masked as a “duty.” Post-war discussions revealed likewise. Additionally. Mr. Lincoln had declared martial law, and was well known for incarcerating many people simply for their opinions against the war. The 1913 law was intended to tax wealthy business professionals, proprietors, corporations, and certain passive unearned investments. The amount of tax owed was to be measured by net income.[1] This is obvious by examining an income tax return from 1913. The tax return of 1913 functioned similarly to the modern Schedule C. Although including a graduated “progressive” surtax, the minimum tax rate was a whopping 1 percent of individual and corporate net income in excess of the exemption amount. Wages are the property an individual receives in exchange for the products of labor, (net) income is profit or gain. Fundamentally, wages are merely conversion of an asset, there can be no gain. In 1913 when wealthier individuals began paying the income tax, the intent was to tax the individual’s net income — net profit and gains from businesses, proprietorships, and investments. By this time readers should realize that if income is synonymous with profits and gain, then with respect to taxation the term net income is redundant. Income is property but income also is a concept. Wages do not fit that same description. Wages are tangible, can be touched, and is an object. That observation would indicate that wages are not subject to an income tax. If wages were to be taxed, they would have to be taxed as normal property, and subject to the rule of apportionment. Regarding individuals and excluding corporations, in the beginning of the income tax only well-to-do investors, proprietors, and professionals operating as a proprietorship, were subject to the tax. Such people tended to manage their businesses and professions using standard accounting principles that calculate and disclose a net income — gain. In those early days income was understood to be profit and gain and distinguished from wages. Nonetheless, the filing process itself opened the doors for later confusion of the terms. As tax rates changed, more middle-class professional individuals and proprietors became subject to the tax system, unfortunately including those people who were not so wealthy. As more and more less-wealthy individual business people became subject to the tax, the groundwork was laid to cloud the distinction between income and wages. Within one generation the distinction was gone. That the IRS glossed and “overlooked” that transition could be attributed to mere bureaucratic bungling and bloat, but accusations of nefarious motivations cannot be ignored. One way or another, what once was considered the sacred property of the typical American — wages and salaries — was slowly being eroded under the guise of being called income.

a reply to: o0oTOPCATo0o
Erm... Where is the link to this source?

You realize that many to most people DON'T pay income taxes right? Most of the country falls in too low of a tax bracket to be taxed. A good portion even get a return instead of owe.

Since the word "rich" isn't really defined in legaleze you could still argue that rich people are still the ones paying income taxes even if rich in this case includes mid to upper middle class.

But regardless, this isn't an argument supporting that the 16th Amendment is unconstitutional. If anything it highlights good reasons to clean up the IRS and our tax code. Not so much repealing the 16th though.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Income Tax
Heres the source to the essay I quoted.

What you say is right. Not what I'm trying to argue though.
My argument is that we should not be taxed on the money we make at a job.
("Federal Income Tax Withheld"on your W-2)

a reply to: o0oTOPCATo0o

Hey. I'm all for cleaning up the tax code. Most people are. I just bulk at the suggestion that the 16th is unconstitutional. Especially when it was written directly into the Constitution.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I wouldn't call it unconstitutional.
I only feel it is unfair that when I trade my time and skill for a wage, that it is defined as "income"

I for one would gladly pay more in sales tax to get the federal govt out of my paycheck.
Thats just me though.

a reply to: o0oTOPCATo0o

See. That's the thing. If we want to get rid of the income tax as it is, we need to recover this lost revenue elsewhere in increased taxes (as you acknowledge with the bump in sales tax point). I don't know enough about tax law to come up with a solution that I can stand by and agree with, but I know a simple solution like "just repeal the 16th" would NOT fix the problem.

Maybe your solution could work though, but again I'm out of my league when it comes to tax law. That stuff makes my eyes cross when I try to read it...