MarAzul says Minimum Wage is Slavery. Moves to Portland, grows hipster beard, joins Antifa. Film at 11. barfo
Wouldn't pass Constitutional muster. That's the entire point of a Constitutional republic--to outline expressed rights that can't be abridged by legislation. How to tax and how to allocate taxpayer money is certainly something that society as a whole decides.
Most of the progressive agenda doesn't pass constitutional muster. That's why FDR tried to pack the supreme court. Even the income tax was not what the founders wanted, but at least that was done through an amendment. What you have is exactly what they rightfully feared. Government enacting laws to direct money from the taxpayer to corporations (in this case, insurance companies). I find it both laughable and two faced when the same people whining about the 1% are happy about directing the government to write actual checks to the 1%.
Agree to disagree. Even the modern, right-learning court that has no FDR appointments didn't consider the greatest modern overreach (in the eyes of conservatives like you) of the ACA to be unconstitutional. And I do hope you're not trotting out that woefully ignorant "the founders were against taxation" idea that Internet libertarians seem fixated on ("Remember the Boston tea party?!"). The colonies were against taxation without representation. Taxes with representation are within The Founders' (hallowed be thy name, of course) grand plan.
Right leaning courts rely on precedent. The current court did not rule on the constitutionality of ObamaCare, but rather whether the Court should be involved in the first place. ("Elections have consequences.") The damage has been done. The constitution expressly forbade direct taxation. That would be an income tax, or any other payment by individuals to the federal government. There was all that time from 1776 until 1913 when there was no federal income tax. http://www.taxhistory.org/thp/readings.nsf/ArtWeb/2B34C7FBDA41D9DA8525730800067017?OpenDocument Direct tax" appears twice in Article I of the U.S. Constitution. Article I, section 2 provides, in relevant part, that "Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States . . . according to their respective Numbers." That is part of the infamous three-fifths clause, or "federal ratio," under which slaves were counted as three-fifths of a free person for purposes of determining the size of a state's congressional delegation, the number of members of the Electoral College a state can elect, and the apportionment of federal direct taxes. Article I, section 9 provides, in relevant part: "No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken." Because of that apportionment requirement, application of "direct tax" as it related to specific taxes has been considered by the Supreme Court in the 18th, 19th, and 20th centuries, and it led to the adoption of the 16th Amendment. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution The Sixteenth Amendment (Amendment XVI) to the United States Constitution allows the Congress to levy an income tax without apportioning it among the states or basing it on the United States Census. This amendment exempted income taxes from the constitutional requirements regarding direct taxes, after income taxes on rents, dividends, and interest were ruled to be direct taxes in the court case of Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. (1895). The amendment was adopted on February 3, 1913.
According to your own links, direct taxes weren't forbidden, they just had to be in proportion to the census. The 16th amendment removed that requirement. Income taxes weren't prohibited before then: So income taxes were perhaps not popular, but they certainly weren't forbidden.
Wow! Spoken like a progressive with an aversion to the Constitution or reading it. Direct Taxes including the illy defined income tax are indeed prohibited until the 16th made "Income" taxable directly on the people instead of the States. At least barfo is more honest, in what he thinks is a worthy use for the Constitution.
You'll have to take up your objections with the Congress that passed income tax legislation during the Civil War (before the 16th amendment) and the Supreme Court that didn't rule it unconstitutional. I'm sure they'll be fascinated.
Yes, Imagine that! Lincoln had suspended Habeas Corpus and was jailing people under the sedition laws. Who the hell was going to bring a little matter of unlawful income tax before the court? Lincoln was a piece of work worthy of study. The Constitution put no barriers in his path.
Since conservatives now believe that Russia is our friend and Abe Lincoln was a traitor, I've got some suggestions for them for further policy positions: We fought on the wrong side in WWI and WWII North Korea is our friend and we should sell arms to them Canada is evil Joe McCarthy and Hoover were unfairly maligned barfo
I would say that no other President has ignored the Constitution as blatantly. No other President has started a civil war. So you see, not needing and amendment to collect income tax is small change where Lincoln is concerned. http://www.history.com/topics/american-civil-war/fort-sumter
The Feds taxed the states. The states raised moneyhow they saw fit. California, with 10% of the population, would pay 10% of the money the Feds needed to raise. That's how it worked. I'd be fine if it went back to that method.
That would certainly be interesting. Tax rates would have to more than double for many of the red states; people in places like NY and MA would get a big tax cut. CA is about the average already, so no effect for you. Oregon is below average, and I'd need to pay about 33% more. The result, I would guess, is that it would be harder to make ends meet in rural states and you'd see increased migration to the cities. barfo
I am amused by your lack of understanding of how things work. Why would the smaller states have their taxes go up? And why would the feds be precluded from spending California's tax revenues toward brining electricity to Appalachia?