|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
 Posted - 10/16/2011 : 19:06:22 [Permalink]
|
Oh, what a dumbass.| ...from someone named "Anonymous Coward." |
It seems like anyone who doesn't provide a user name there is labeled "Anonymous Coward." You can see which Anonymous Coward is writing a comment there by checking the user ID under the name. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
 |
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 10/16/2011 : 20:15:14 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by justintime
So you are saying there is no need to get state approval to implement a national sales tax across the board. That states will have to accepts it just because it is federally approved. Where is the separation of state rights and federal rights?
|
By this logic, all states income taxes must be illegal.
Since most of them have income taxes, I think this blows a super-size hole in your argument.
I would like you to go on record for this.
CAIN'S 9-9-9 Plan is Unconstitutional for TWO Big Reasons!
Cain's 9-9-9 plan is unconstitutional for two reasons:
1) The Constitution (through the 16th amendment) only gives the federal government the power to collect INCOME tax (not sales tax). This is why there has never been a national sales tax.
"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."
|
Oooooo. Wrong conclusion. The problem is apportionment. Not the ability to lay the tax.
The reason there has been no national sales tax is because representatives of poor states can do math and they know it will disproportionately hit the poor vs the rich.
The 10th amendment gives the states any powers not specified in the Constitution so only the states are allowed to impose sales taxes.
|
Nope. By that logic, state income taxes would be illegal. They aren't.
2) The Constitution specifically requires a supermajority (i.e a two-thirds vote) in only 7 places and for special circumstances (overriding a veto, expelling a member, etc.). For passing Bills and changing Laws, only a majority vote is required and this is the essence of the democratic process. In fact, it is UNCONSTITUTIONAL to have a law which BYPASSES THIS DEMOCRATIC PROCESS. Cain can not make a law that requires a 2/3 vote for it to be changed. If that was allowed you could also make a law that required 99 out of 100 votes for it to change and laws would be near IMPOSSIBLE to repeal by future congresses.
|
Nope. The supermajority is needed to break filibuster. Cain, as Preseident, cannot make any law. But that is a different argument. The bills writers can require a supermajority to change the law, but not for repeal.
It is troubling that these two very important items are being ignored by the media. Ron Paul did not mention either of these about 9-9-9 during the last debate which suggests he may be a shill (a very good one with a large following). Please bump and pin to show that GLP respects the Constitution. Thank you!
|
Ron Paul, whacky as he may be, knows more about the Constitution.
GLP? Bump? Pin?
justintime, if you have no original thoughts, please do not bother to cut and paste them here. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 10/16/2011 : 21:17:25 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by H. Humbert
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by justintime
Please bump and pin to show that GLP respects the Constitution. |
Who the heck is GLP?
|
GLP is "God-like Productions," the name of the website where justintime plagiarized this information from someone named "Anonymous Coward."
|
Busted!
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 10/16/2011 : 21:45:09 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
Busted! |
By his own sheer incompetence. 
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
|
|
|
justintime
BANNED
382 Posts |
Posted - 10/17/2011 : 07:00:23 [Permalink]
|
I presented the material exactly as it was posted in its original form. It articulates very well the problems with introducing a national federal tax. The same issue has been debated on CNN with a panel of legal pundits. The conclusion was the same as the one I posted.
What is being busted here is really some very ill informed members who think they can refute any position without the proper research and understanding of the subject. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
 Posted - 10/17/2011 : 08:23:02 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by justintime
I presented the material exactly as it was posted in its original form. It articulates very well the problems with introducing a national federal tax. The same issue has been debated on CNN with a panel of legal pundits. The conclusion was the same as the one I posted. |
You didn't link to it. You posted it as thought they were your words. It doesn't matter if you think it's correct. Plagiarism is plagiarism. Nice work.
justintime:
What is being busted here is really some very ill informed members who think they can refute any position without the proper research and understanding of the subject.
|
What do you mean by proper research? Is that culling other forums to find a post that you agree with and then copy and paste it without attribution or a link? You can try to weasel out of it, but what you did was dishonest. What other dishonesties are you capable of? (I've found a few in other threads.) Again, nice going. [sarcasm]You certainly have raised the bar on ethical debate..[/sarcasm] |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 10/17/2011 : 08:30:58 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by justintime
I presented the material exactly as it was posted in its original form. |
That doesn't release you from the need to give proper credit for work that isn't yours.| It articulates very well the problems with introducing a national federal tax. |
If it were factually accurate, it might.| The same issue has been debated on CNN with a panel of legal pundits. The conclusion was the same as the one I posted. |
Baloney. Video or you're making stuff up.| What is being busted here is really some very ill informed members who think they can refute any position without the proper research and understanding of the subject. |
Quit projecting your failures onto us.
First Federal personal income tax: 1861.
16th Amendment ratified: 1913.
Obviously, the 16th Amendment did not give Congress the power to create an income tax, because they'd been doing so for 52 years beforehand.
No Amendment has ever been passed to create any Federal tax (there aren't that many amendments, go read them all and see for yourself). You apparently think that a national sales tax would be different from Federal payroll or excise taxes in this regard. Why? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 10/17/2011 : 08:40:01 [Permalink]
|
| The only thing I can think of that might throw a wrench into the works is that Congress has no power to regulate intrastate commerce. It might be a stretch but there may be an issue with taxing intrastate commerce. Technically, though, Income taxes are intrastate taxes for most transactions. So that one is really weak. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 10/17/2011 : 09:26:49 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
The only thing I can think of that might throw a wrench into the works is that Congress has no power to regulate intrastate commerce. It might be a stretch but there may be an issue with taxing intrastate commerce. Technically, though, Income taxes are intrastate taxes for most transactions. So that one is really weak. |
Legally, is taxation considered to be regulation? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
justintime
BANNED
382 Posts |
Posted - 10/17/2011 : 10:16:59 [Permalink]
|
A sales tax is not an income tax. Only States can currently apply a sales tax. The constitution (edited) has given the federal government the power to collect INCOME TAX. I am surprised even after providing a good explanations from an obviously intelligent person. You guys are still struggling with the issue.
|
| Edited by - justintime on 10/17/2011 10:48:00 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 10/17/2011 : 10:35:36 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by justintime
Only States can currently apply a sales tax. |
Please provide a proper reference to the law which supports that claim.| Income tax has given the federal government the power to collect INCOME TAX. |
I would guess you meant "The Constitution" at the beginning of that sentence, but you'd be wrong because I already quoted the Constitution and you're simply denying what it says.| I am surprised even after providing a good explanations from an obviously intelligent person. |
You did no such thing.| You guys are still struggling with the issue. |
Quit projecting your stupidity onto us. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 10/17/2011 : 11:07:46 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by justintime
A sales tax is not an income tax. Only States can currently apply a sales tax. The constitution (edited) has given the federal government the power to collect INCOME TAX. I am surprised even after providing a good explanations from an obviously intelligent person. You guys are still struggling with the issue.
|
US Constitution, Article I, Section 8, Clause 1
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
|
Blows a real big hole in your contention.
It would have to be uniform from each state until....
US Constitution, Amendment XVI
AMENDMENT XVI
Passed by Congress July 2, 1909. Ratified February 3, 1913.
Note: Article I, section 9, of the Constitution was modified by amendment 16.
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.
|
This frees up the income tax to be based on income and not a percentage of a known amount based on equally dividing the take from states.
Sales tax does not require this as it is an impost that is uniformly applied to all states. The 16th Amendment is unnecessary to the imposition of a uniform national sales tax. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
ThorGoLucky
Snuggle Wolf
USA
1487 Posts |
Posted - 10/17/2011 : 14:28:55 [Permalink]
|
Regarding a national sales tax, I work with Point of Sale systems and the implementation would be really annoying and it would be costly for both business and government. Each mechanism of taxation has a level of bureaucracy. Why add a new level of bureaucracy and expense when revenue can simply be adjusted using existing mechanisms?
I'm familiar with this issue because I live in Oregon that happily has no sales tax, and sometimes the idea of implementing a sales tax comes up but quickly gets shot down.
Pushing for a national sales tax is a cynical attempt by the rich to further shift the burden of taxation from those who can afford it to those that can't.
|
|
|
|
ThorGoLucky
Snuggle Wolf
USA
1487 Posts |
Posted - 10/17/2011 : 17:14:22 [Permalink]
|
| Oops, I since learned that the 9-9-9 plan replaces other taxes so one of my arguments dissolved. |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 10/18/2011 : 05:37:18 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by ThorGoLucky
Oops, I since learned that the 9-9-9 plan replaces other taxes so one of my arguments dissolved.
|
Not really.
It just shifts that burden from the rich to the poor in a simpler way.
I posted before how the poor live paycheck to paycheck. How they expend 100% of their income on goods and services that are required for basic living.
The rich only spend a portion of their income and can save quite a bit of it.
So, poor people will pay 9% of income + another 9% of the net on sales taxes. (17.19% of total income)
The rich who spend 75% of their money on goods and save 25% of their money will pay 9% of income + another 9% of the 75% of net income on sales taxes. (15.1425%)
Corporations will pay 9% of their income. It is unclear if they will pay sales taxes. But they will not pay out 100% of their income unless they are a small business. (9% - 17.19% of total income inversely proportional to business size.)
It is a regressive tax that hits the poor harder than the rich. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
 |
|
The next black president?
