(04-18-2012 03:23 PM)Max Power Wrote:  And your money isn't yours. We have a constitution, and the constitution allows the Congress to tax your income. So yes they can legally take however much of their income they want.

Just a question for our resident legal expert.

Show me the language in the Constitution or the BOR where it authorizes Congress to collect an INCOME tax from citizens. (Taxing their wages - just so we are clear).

This should be good. I'll wait.



The Buffet Rule shenanigans is just the latest shiny object dangled in front of us to distract us from the disaster that is this administration.

(04-18-2012 03:23 PM)Max Power Wrote:  And your money isn't yours. We have a constitution, and the constitution allows the Congress to tax your income. So yes they can legally take however much of their income they want.

There was a time when this statement would have shocked me.

Not anymore.

(04-18-2012 01:21 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  Democrat Math 501:

Increasing tax rates on rich people, who will avoid most of the burden anyway through endless loopholes, will solve our debt problem, even though taking EVERYTHING that EVERYONE makes over $250,000 won't solve our annual budget deficit, much less our cumulative one.

(04-18-2012 03:23 PM)Max Power Wrote:  And your money isn't yours. We have a constitution, and the constitution allows the Congress to tax your income. So yes they can legally take however much of their income they want.

I for one have zero interest in living in any country where this is a governing principle.

Quote:We're talking about millionaires and billionaires here. They don't spend all their money (unless they're lottery winners). They probably spend very little of their money. Billionaires I would wager actually spend less than 5% of their after tax income. So if of that remaining 95% of income, we take an extra few percentage points and give it to poor people to buy food or construction workers to improve our highways, we do a lot more for the economy by increasing demand and production.

One big problem with that analysis. You're talking about money they don't need to live on. That means they can park it anywhere and just let it grow. And if they have the same opportunity in two different places, one of which is going to extract considerably more taxes than the other, they will invest in the lower tax place. That's what drives capital flight. I'd really like for you or any other left wingnut to explain to me how you can on the one hand rail against capital (and job) flight now, while on the other hand you simply assume that you can raise taxes without causing more capital to fly away. There's a rather shocking lack of intellectual honesty in maintaining those two positions simultaneously.

(04-18-2012 03:40 PM)MileHighBronco Wrote:  Just a question for our resident legal expert.

Show me the language in the Constitution or the BOR where it authorizes Congress to collect an INCOME tax from citizens. (Taxing their wages - just so we are clear).

This should be good. I'll wait.

Are you kidding? First of all, the Bill of Rights is part of the Constitution.

Second, the Sixteenth Amendment clearly authorized it:


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.

(04-18-2012 03:56 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I for one have zero interest in living in any country where this is a governing principle.

Well, sorry to lose you.

Quote:One big problem with that analysis. You're talking about money they don't need to live on. That means they can park it anywhere and just let it grow. And if they have the same opportunity in two different places, one of which is going to extract considerably more taxes than the other, they will invest in the lower tax place. That's what drives capital flight. I'd really like for you or any other left wingnut to explain to me how you can on the one hand rail against capital (and job) flight now, while on the other hand you simply assume that you can raise taxes without causing more capital to fly away. There's a rather shocking lack of intellectual honesty in maintaining those two positions simultaneously.

We're talking about income, so they can't "park it" if they don't receive it in the first place. In other words, the income tax steps in and takes the money before it reaches the billionaire. If it's interest on their capital gains and you're saying they'll park it somewhere and just won't realize those gains, well they're just delaying the inevitable.

Our individual tax system taxes all worldwide income (giving a credit to taxes paid in other countries), so whether the billionaire is earning income in Poland or the US he's paying the same rate on that income (unless Poland is higher). Corporations would more easily move capital and residency, but of course it isn't covered by the Buffett Rule.

I do think any time you raise taxes you risk losing capital, but the benefits outweigh the capital losses to a certain tipping point as I mentioned earlier. We can institute capital controls to help too.

You really know that what you parrot is the "conventional wisdom" but you really should do some reading on this and be aware of those that dissent from that "wisdom" and at least acknowledge it.

While I'm not involved in any tax evasion groups, they do have a point that the 16th Amendment was NEVER properly ratified. Few realize this and some will say that it is beating a dead horse. All it proves to me is that folks in our government were just as corrupt back then (1909 - 1913) as they are today. Sec. of State Knox proclaimed in February, just prior to leaving that 38 states had ratified it. 36 were needed for ratification.

But, was that true?

http://www.thelawthatneverwas.com/

http://www.givemeliberty.org/features/ta...tified.htm

A quick Google search will give you lots of places to start.

Interesting - here is one analysis that argues that the 16th Amendment is NOT the source of the Federal Income Tax.

http://www.thepriceofliberty.org/04/04/1...nslade.htm

The Federal Government divides taxes into either DIRECT or INDIRECT.

(04-18-2012 05:12 PM)Max Power Wrote:  We can institute capital controls to help too.

At least you're openly admitting your anti-freedom agenda now.

(04-18-2012 10:03 AM)Paul M Wrote:  

First cartoon I've seen about this joke.

(04-18-2012 08:29 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  IMATY, you should work for fox nation or drudge with that thread title...linking to a story titled: "Senate GOP blocks Obama's 'Buffett rule' for minimum tax rate on millionaires"

You do know that the GOP is don't you?

LOL...fair enough. I knew someone would call me out on it. It did encourage discussion though...

(04-18-2012 03:43 PM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  

(04-18-2012 03:23 PM)Max Power Wrote:  And your money isn't yours. We have a constitution, and the constitution allows the Congress to tax your income. So yes they can legally take however much of their income they want.

There was a time when this statement would have shocked me.

Not anymore.

I would add that we as a people can also legally change the government whenever we want...by any means necessary.

Max Power Wrote:And your money isn't yours. We have a constitution, and the constitution allows the Congress to tax your income. So yes they can legally take however much of their income they want.

That is purely awesome. I think you should suggest all Democrats run with that as their campaign slogan. Why not be honest and open about what you really think?

(04-18-2012 05:12 PM)Max Power Wrote:  

(04-18-2012 03:56 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I for one have zero interest in living in any country where this is a governing principle.

Well, sorry to lose you.

Quote:One big problem with that analysis. You're talking about money they don't need to live on. That means they can park it anywhere and just let it grow. And if they have the same opportunity in two different places, one of which is going to extract considerably more taxes than the other, they will invest in the lower tax place. That's what drives capital flight. I'd really like for you or any other left wingnut to explain to me how you can on the one hand rail against capital (and job) flight now, while on the other hand you simply assume that you can raise taxes without causing more capital to fly away. There's a rather shocking lack of intellectual honesty in maintaining those two positions simultaneously.

We're talking about income, so they can't "park it" if they don't receive it in the first place. In other words, the income tax steps in and takes the money before it reaches the billionaire. If it's interest on their capital gains and you're saying they'll park it somewhere and just won't realize those gains, well they're just delaying the inevitable.
Our individual tax system taxes all worldwide income (giving a credit to taxes paid in other countries), so whether the billionaire is earning income in Poland or the US he's paying the same rate on that income (unless Poland is higher). Corporations would more easily move capital and residency, but of course it isn't covered by the Buffett Rule.
I do think any time you raise taxes you risk losing capital, but the benefits outweigh the capital losses to a certain tipping point as I mentioned earlier. We can institute capital controls to help too.

There are ways around the worldwide taxing structure. They're awkward at best, but when there's $20-30 million at stake, you'll do awkward. Basically, as long as it's money that you don't need, that is just appreciating wealth, you stick it in a non-US entity and never take it out, so you are never taxed in the US. And you can take some minimal amounts out not subject to US tax if you structure things very carefully. If it's money you don't need to live, your kids pay the estate tax, but they do that anyway.

With this post and the prior one, you have revealed your true intentions. We declared our independence in 1776, and fought our first war immediately thereafter, to be free of the likes of you. We are citizens with a government that derives its powers from us, not subjects of an all-powerful government that distributes to us what it deems we need. I sincerely hope we remain free of your type of thinking, although I fear the current occupant of the white house would agree with you 100%.

If I do leave, it will be because your side has won, and I will not be sorry to lose you.

(04-18-2012 05:26 PM)MileHighBronco Wrote:  You really know that what you parrot is the "conventional wisdom" but you really should do some reading on this and be aware of those that dissent from that "wisdom" and at least acknowledge it.

While I'm not involved in any tax evasion groups, they do have a point that the 16th Amendment was NEVER properly ratified. Few realize this and some will say that it is beating a dead horse. All it proves to me is that folks in our government were just as corrupt back then (1909 - 1913) as they are today. Sec. of State Knox proclaimed in February, just prior to leaving that 38 states had ratified it. 36 were needed for ratification.

But, was that true?

http://www.thelawthatneverwas.com/

http://www.givemeliberty.org/features/ta...tified.htm

A quick Google search will give you lots of places to start.

Interesting - here is one analysis that argues that the 16th Amendment is NOT the source of the Federal Income Tax.

http://www.thepriceofliberty.org/04/04/1...nslade.htm

The Federal Government divides taxes into either DIRECT or INDIRECT.

That's ridiculous. I'm not going through all of that, except to say that the one site I clicked on said notice of one state legislature's passage wasn't delivered to the SOS, which is not a requirement for ratification in the first place (see Article V); and 44 states ratified it, which is 8 more than was necessary.

And besides, Congress had the power to tax income before the 16th Amendment anyway.

Article I, Section 8, Clause 1:

The Congress shall have power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises...

Article I, Section 2, Clause 3:

Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers...

What does this mean? It means even without the 16th Amendment, Congress can impose an income tax, which is what courts have held. The reason for the 16th Amendment was to do away with the requirement that DIRECT income taxes (which is income on people or property; the primary example today would be capital gains) be apportioned by population, so all states have to pay the same per capita. INDIRECT income taxes (which is income on activity, such as on wages) don't even have to be apportioned so invalidating the 16th Amendment wouldn't change that at all. All invalidating the 16th Amendment would do is force Congress to apportion capital gains taxes, so a small state like Wyoming with 0.1% of the US population can't pay more than 0.1% of all the capital gains, and so you'd see all the Mitt Romneys and Koch brothers of the world move to Wyoming for the insanely low tax rates. It would be crazy.

And furthermore, even if the amendment was declared void, a new one replacing it would be ratified in a New York minute. That crap is ridiculous on so many levels and your fight is futile.

(04-19-2012 08:00 AM)GeorgeBorkFan Wrote:  

Max Power Wrote:And your money isn't yours. We have a constitution, and the constitution allows the Congress to tax your income. So yes they can legally take however much of their income they want.

That is purely awesome. I think you should suggest all Democrats run with that as their campaign slogan. Why not be honest and open about what you really think?

It's not what I think. It's a fact. Congress has the power to do whatever they want with your income, taking all or none of it. Only with conservatives are facts controversial.

(04-19-2012 08:28 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Basically, as long as it's money that you don't need, that is just appreciating wealth, you stick it in a non-US entity and never take it out, so you are never taxed in the US.

Hooray, you parked money somewhere and never get to touch it. But you get statements in the mail telling you how much more it's worth, which would be great if you could touch it, but you can't.

When you or your kids do decide to touch it though, the gains will be taxed. Just putting off the inevitable, like I said.

Quote:And you can take some minimal amounts out not subject to US tax if you structure things very carefully.

Explain in more detail please. Whatever loophole this is it should be closed. You withdraw and you realize capital gains and should be taxed.

Quote:With this post and the prior one, you have revealed your true intentions. We fought our first war, in 1776, to be free of the likes of you.

I just gave you a fact that you should have already been aware of. Congress has the power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, of all kinds, without apportionment. Therefore it controls your income and decides how much you take home, and it has always been this way.

And no, we fought a war in 1776 to be free of taxation without representation. YOU have representation. OUR representatives put this in place. If you don't like it, petition your representatives or take your ball and go to Poland.

Max, you have made it clear what the real difference between us is.

Not that you want to save the poor and I hate them. Actually, I'm pretty sure my plan for the poor would make them better off than anything you have supported.
Not that I want to cater to the rich. Actually, the truly rich would almost certainly pay substantially more under anything I have proposed than they do now.
Nor that I'm a racist, or war-monger, or any of the other epithets routinely thrown by the left at anyone who disagrees with them.

No, the difference is very simple. You think that government comes first, ahead of people, while I believe that people come first, ahead of government.

You obviously believe that everything earned by anyone should go first to the government, who gets to decide how much should be "distributed" to the person who was "fortunate" enough to come up with the idea. Your ilk tends to support this with some argument that it was government that enabled this person to have his better idea and to implement it, and therefore he or she deserves nothing for having the idea and making it happen. I believe that what you earn is yours first.

It's fashionable, particularly in right-wing circles, to label your thinking as communist, or socialist, or fascist, so that something like "Heil Komrade Max" would be an appropriate greeting for you. But what it really is--is feudal. Everything belongs to the king, who gets to distribute it among his loyal vassals as he sees fit.

But whether you label it communist, socialist, fascist, or feudal, the one thing I know is that I want no part of a society which operates with that as a governing principle.

Yeah, I know, congress theoretically could do anything, as you say. But what makes this country worth living is that we have a constitution that prohbits congress from going where it doesn't belong, and a congress that is generally mindful of its need to mind its own business--although in recent years, both the supreme court and the congress have tended to wear away at those limits. The "end justifies the means" mentality is counter to our constitution, not to mention ideas set forth in the Declaration of Independence. I certainly hope that you and your ilk cease to hold any power as we go forward. I consider those of your ilk to be evil and destructive and despicable people, who need to be kept away from any decision-making if we are to survive as a livable country. Unfortunately, we don't seem to be going that way.