But you still have to pay your taxes, even if no federal reserve notes were exchanged. You can spend your whole life trading works of art for automobiles, and then trading automobile rentals for meals and lodging, but at the end of the day, you’re still taxed on all those transactions, even if they weren’t conducted with reserve notes.
As for why standing armies were deemed dangerous, he was looking at the experience of the Roman republic. Soldiers fight wars. If they sit around the barracks all day they get bored and out of practice. So the temptation is to keep them busy doing things like invading the neighbors, otherwise you’re not getting your money’s worth. Plus standing armies tend to be loyal to their officers rather than the country. So the general of a victorious army that just conquered a neighboring country often doesn’t feel much like coming home and retiring, instead he brings the army home and makes himself dictator.
You have not yet, in this thread, given any reasons why it is unwise.
FWIW, you are wiser than Ed Brown.
Later amendments trump earlier amendments; the 16th Amendment trumps the 4th, to the extent of any conflict between them. Besides, when it comes to determining the fair market value of goods, or the existence of barter transactions, you do have recourse to the courts, which are nominally 
politically independent of the other two branches.
:rolleyes: You misunderstand the legal meaning of “enumeration.”
And what reason do you have to think that?!
It is if you bring it up here.
Why is the income tax immoral?
Yes, in the sense that in a republic/democracy the people are ultimately sovereign.
Excellent point.
In a related note, I have a great amount of respect for Jefferson, but let’s get real: the economy have changed a lot in 200 years. If I were a wealthy landowner living in an age of agriculture who had ample unpaid labor while hocking myself up to the eyeballs so that I had no choice but to die deeply in debt, then I’d say Mr. Jefferson’s views on financial matters would carry considerable weight.
However, seeing as how the modern financial system has played no small part in making our country wealthy beyond the dreams of the Founding Fathers, and the central banking system initially established in Jefferson’s time still has yet to lead to the demise of our national wealth, I think it may be worth paying more attention to the advice of contemporary economists on the question of whether or not banks are a good thing.
I think there a few good arguments, but I’m sure federal prosecutors would have no problem providing counter-interpretations. One could argue that declaring income sources violates the 4th amendment, one could argue the tax violates last clause of the 16th, in regards to enumeration. There are several arguments which could and have been made, but I wouldn’t make them in federal court, if they ever find that I owe more taxes, I would just pay the fucking tax, because I have no interest in being a tax martyr, and I will continue to give unto Caesar what is Caesar’s. But I still think it is immoral and we should be taxing other revenue streams. I would support a nationwide sales tax on non-food items if it would mean eliminating the income tax.
No one could not. “Enumeration” here clearly refers to enumeration of the people.
The purpose of the enumeration clause in the first place was to prevent a coalition of states from passing a tax bill that disproportionately taxed the other states. Like, “all states ending in the letter ‘a’ have to pay the ‘a’ tax.” In other words, large states would get together to force the smaller states to pay higher taxes.
Of course, this preventing things like income taxes. And so the 16th amendment was ratified which explicityly ALLOWED direct taxes, regardless of whether they were proportional to the enumeration of citizens. Your argument that the 16th amendment prohibits income taxes because it requires your income to be enumerated is nonsensical, even if it were true that the enumeration refered to the amount of tax rather than to the populations of the states. Because it explicitly ALLOWS such taxes to be imposed, rather than prohibits it.
Tomayto, tomahto.
Landowners often are.
Funny how that works.
Well, in America at least, though we have had a standing army from the beginning, we have never been in serious danger of the latter. (Why stage a coup when your military record makes you a viable candidate for president?) The former . . . yes and yes. But that does not directly endanger domestic liberty.
Why is a sales tax any more moral than an income tax?
I think it’s too vague. The context is open to interpretation, you are just telling me how it’s historically been interpreted, that’s not to say it couldn’t be interpreted differently in the future.
Because the income tax is a direct tax on labor, and I just don’t agree with it. I think indirect taxes can be justified more easily because the consumer can choose whether or not to submit themselves to that tax. I can brew my own beer and not pay the alcohol tax. I can grow my own tobacco and avoid the cigarette tax. I can grow my own food and not pay sales tax in states that tax food. If gasoline is taxed, I can choose to use un-taxed biodiesel. I can choose to avoid the toll booths on GA400, etc, etc. I don’t think everyone should have to pay for public schools either, I think they should be funded by the people who attend them. But I also disagree with taxes that create high barriers to entry in certain markets, namely distilling fuel/alcohol. For instance, the fuel tax (permit) in Kentucky is 150k, and I think the only people who benefit from that are the large distilleries… I also don’t think production should be taxed, only sale.
I think it’s a little long in the tooth for anything like that? Anything like a national bank was resisted for a long time in the United States, not to mention taxes, as you note a lot of, uh, notes were issued by state and local banks. Elaborate currency converters were printed for identification because there were so many - posters really, and listed the latest exchange rates too.
Looking back at it over a longer time period - something like 20 or 30 bills were introduced in congress during the period 1880-1900 trying to establish a federal income tax, and probably some sort of national bank. So all this wasn’t for a lack of trying.
Surprisingly income witholding got wound up pretty good during the Civil War, and then rescinded? That was when income withholding was first performed anyway, along with the taxpayer attesting to the veracity of the return under penalty of fines and imprisonment. Most of the money came from a very few NE states, I just don’t think there was the organizational element available to levy taxes in more remote areas. That’s one way the states were snookered in on the deal.
“Sure, let them Easterners pay all the taxes.”
Except, what exactly do you think the 16th amendment was FOR, if not to explicitly allow congress to levy income taxes and stop once and for all the arguments about the constitutionality of the income tax. The 16th Amendment explicitly says congress has the power to collect income taxes, regardless of the source of that income, regardless of whether those taxes are collected equally from all states, regardless of the population of the states.
I’m trying and failing to wrap my head around your argument. To strip out the intervening clauses, the amendment would read:
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes without regard to any census or enumeration.
Now, how in the world can you interpret that to mean that congress is FORBIDDEN to lay and collect taxes on income? It simply and plainly means that congress does have the power to collect income taxes. Your interpretation would have to mean that congress can only collect income taxes as long as no one actually counts up how much someone would owe. And since congress is forbidden from enumerating your income, you don’t have to pay taxes? Except that would make this amendment a pointless excercise. Why would they have passed the amendment if they believed that it meant what you pretend it means?
Even if their wording was ambiguous–WHICH IT IS NOT–what difference would it make? From the first minute the 16th Amendment was ratified, it has been interpreted to mean that congress can impose income taxes. Why didn’t the ratifiers scream bloody murder that they intended to forbid income taxes, not allow them? Why didn’t they quickly ratify another amendment clarifying that income taxes were RIGHT OUT?
It’s not like this amendment was ratified, and a hundred years later some shyster lawyer noticed that it could be interpreted to allow income taxes rather than prohibit them. It was ratified, and five seconds later congress started collecting income taxes. Everyone knew what it meant, and they ratified it anyway.
THAT is what the tin-foil hat crowd maintains. And, they are probably correct to some degree - it sounds pretty hinky when you read what happened. I happen to enjoy my freedom and all that, and the first question I would ask any of the folks who sell books like “Never Pay Income Tax Again…” would be “If you’re so smart, how come you’re in jail?”
But, you’re still begging the question. What is immoral about a “direct tax on labor”?
-
Generally and for practical purposes, no, they can’t.
-
Why should that distinction make a difference? Every government taxes real property – whether the owner makes any profitable use of the property in question or not. Is that in any way illegitimate?
I’m not sure how to quote this, so I’ll simply say that **E-Sabbath ** posted this previously:
It always comes down to this, doesn’t it? “I believe in God, God is mightier than the U.S. Gummint, I don’t like the Gummint, ergo, I obey only God, which, in my belief, is mightier than any gummint. And because I believe it, it must be right because the Bible and my pastor say so.”
If someone is really that delusional, that utterly separated from reality, how can they operate in reality well enough to be so wealthy? Other than not paying taxes, that is. And if they’re NOT really that delusioinal, then they must certainly be the ultimate in swindlers and con folk, in which case they know the ride is gonna’ end, and end badly, some day.
I agree – we don’t need another Waco or Ruby Ridge, and one would hope that the federal agencies had learned the hard lessons of those places. I say pen 'em up with federal marshals, National Guard and/or Reservists, and wait 'em out. Maybe they’ll die of old age in their posh compound, but they’ll die alone and without sympathy or support.
You can try and simplify, and I will complicate. I will show that words can be interpreted any way the interpreter wants to interpret them. I don’t think income will ever be defined to my satisifaction, and I would interpret the word ’several’ to mean less than 10, so only ten states per year are subject to the income tax. See, I’m just like the last two Presidents, I let words mean whatever I want them to mean. Go ahead, try and define sexual relations, I dare you!