Constitution for the United States of America, Section 8 - Page 3

RightinNYC · 11-01-07, 10:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Goldenboy219

The income taxes during the civil war were based on appropriation and enumeration, were they not???

No. They. Were. Not.

This is my point that I've made over and over and that you don't seem to get.

The original federal income taxes as imposed during the civil war were 3% taxes on personal income over $800. Taxes of this type lasted for over 30 years until Pollock v. Farmers overturned the tax on property-derived income, because "direct" taxation without appropriation/enumeration is prohibited by Art. 1, Sec. 9. However, they let the labor-derived income tax remain in full force, because income taxes on this type of labor were considered "indirect" taxation (also known as excise taxes), and are not based on appropriation or enumeration.

The effect of this was that during the period between 1861 and 1913, income derived from property-based income, such as stock dividends, could only be appropriated based on enumeration. However, labor-based income, such as all traditional wage payment, was subject to standard taxation.

Quote:

Your entire point proves mine even further. When i said taxes pre 1913 were based on appropriation and enumeration why is it you said ???????????????????????????

Because I was right and you were wrong?

Quote:

Unless you dare to have a debate on the constitution????

Oh, dare I do.

By the way, I'm still waiting for your evidence about the 16th Amendment being unconstitutional.

Goldenboy219 · 11-02-07, 12:44 AM

Taken from U.S. Treasury - Fact Sheet on the History of the U.S. Tax System

Quote:

The Civil War

When the Civil War erupted, the Congress passed the Revenue Act of 1861, which restored earlier excises taxes and imposed a tax on personal incomes. The income tax was levied at 3 percent on all incomes higher than $800 a year. This tax on personal income was a new direction for a Federal tax system based mainly on excise taxes and customs duties. Certain inadequacies of the income tax were quickly acknowledged by Congress and thus none was collected until the following year.

By the spring of 1862 it was clear the war would not end quickly and with the Union's debt growing at the rate of $2 million daily it was equally clear the Federal government would need additional revenues. On July 1, 1862 the Congress passed new excise taxes on such items as playing cards, gunpowder, feathers, telegrams, iron, leather, pianos, yachts, billiard tables, drugs, patent medicines, and whiskey. Many legal documents were also taxed and license fees were collected for almost all professions and trades.

The 1862 law also made important reforms to the Federal income tax that presaged important features of the current tax. For example, a two-tiered rate structure was enacted, with taxable incomes up to $10,000 taxed at a 3 percent rate and higher incomes taxed at 5 percent. A standard deduction of $600 was enacted and a variety of deductions were permitted for such things as rental housing, repairs, losses, and other taxes paid. In addition, to assure timely collection, taxes were "withheld at the source" by employers.

The need for Federal revenue declined sharply after the war and most taxes were repealed. By 1868, the main source of Government revenue derived from liquor and tobacco taxes. The income tax was abolished in 1872. From 1868 to 1913, almost 90 percent of all revenue was collected from the remaining excises.

RightinNYC · 11-02-07, 01:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Goldenboy219

Taken from U.S. Treasury - Fact Sheet on the History of the U.S. Tax System

I don't think you get that nothing that you're saying in any way disproves my argument.

In 1861, there was a huge need for revenues and accordingly, the first income taxes were authorized. 11 years later, the need had declined drastically, and the taxes were repealed. 12 years later, it was re-instituted as part of the Tariff Act. If you don't see why this means you were wrong, I don't know what else to tell you.

To reiterate:

"The income taxes during the civil war were based on appropriation and enumeration, were they not???"

No, they were not.

"It is actually true that the ratification of this amendment was obtained in multiple unconstitutional ways."

No, it is not true.

"It figures you have no comprehension on what part of the constitution allows for an income tax...Guess what Jeff, article 1 section 8 isnt it. That just allows for things such as a sales tax, excise, tariffs, etc."

Yea, except what you and I would consider to be a personal income tax was considered to be an excise tax at the time, so Sec. 8 did authorize an income tax.

Goldenboy219 · 11-02-07, 02:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RightinNYC

I don't think you get that nothing that you're saying in any way disproves my argument.

In 1861, there was a huge need for revenues and accordingly, the first income taxes were authorized. 11 years later, the need had declined drastically, and the taxes were repealed. 12 years later, it was re-instituted as part of the Tariff Act. If you don't see why this means you were wrong, I don't know what else to tell you.

To reiterate:

"The income taxes during the civil war were based on appropriation and enumeration, were they not???"

No, they were not.

"It is actually true that the ratification of this amendment was obtained in multiple unconstitutional ways."

No, it is not true.

"It figures you have no comprehension on what part of the constitution allows for an income tax...Guess what Jeff, article 1 section 8 isnt it. That just allows for things such as a sales tax, excise, tariffs, etc."

Yea, except what you and I would consider to be a personal income tax was considered to be an excise tax at the time, so Sec. 8 did authorize an income tax.

Fair enough. There was an 11 year direct tax. It was though very different from the tax we have today.

Which brings us back to the question of the OP, and my initial response. The 16th amendment...

Vader · 11-09-07, 09:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stinger

Mostly yes, does that mean we don't need to scrap it and go to a simpler fairer system? No.

Wrong.

The current system favors the wealthy and leaves the middle class to pay for everything. This system must be scrapped in favor a system free of tax loop holes, which will force the uber weathly to pay their fair share --- instead of the 6% they are accustomed to paying.

Vader · 11-09-07, 09:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RightinNYC

I don't think you get that nothing that you're saying in any way disproves my argument.

In 1861, there was a huge need for revenues and accordingly, the first income taxes were authorized. 11 years later, the need had declined drastically, and the taxes were repealed. 12 years later, it was re-instituted as part of the Tariff Act. If you don't see why this means you were wrong, I don't know what else to tell you.

To reiterate:

"The income taxes during the civil war were based on appropriation and enumeration, were they not???"

No, they were not.

"It is actually true that the ratification of this amendment was obtained in multiple unconstitutional ways."

No, it is not true.

"It figures you have no comprehension on what part of the constitution allows for an income tax...Guess what Jeff, article 1 section 8 isnt it. That just allows for things such as a sales tax, excise, tariffs, etc."

Yea, except what you and I would consider to be a personal income tax was considered to be an excise tax at the time, so Sec. 8 did authorize an income tax.

Spoken like a true conservative big business puppet. I have long heard that the far right enjoys making millions off the blood, sweat, and tears of the middle class and working poor.

Income tax was created to pay for a war --- it was NEVER intended to be a permenant fixture.

Income tax needs to be abolished in favor a federal sales tax of about 6% on food and 12% on all non-esentals. This sales tax would only apply to those who make more than $120,000 per year and would be used to fund the government in the same fashion as the current income tax.

I realize Republicans do not like this idea because it would prevent them weasling out of paying their fair share; however, that is too damn bad. It's time for Republicans to live by the same crooked standards they have forced on the middle class and working poor for the last 200 years.

American · 01-23-08, 08:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Guest1

Do you think current federal taxation code complies with this article of the constitution?

No, because the 16th Amendment gave the government the right to put its hand directly into your pocket. Are ya feelin' it?

The real question should be, do you believe in direct or indirect taxes in the US. The federal government, or the United States as it is called in the Constitution, is a federation of States and therefore to be funded by the States. That is why Section 8 calls for an indirect tax based on apportionment. Well since the Constitution was bastardized by a few clowns in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, we now vote directly for our US Senators and we pay direct taxes to the federal govt.

Isn't it just grand?

RightinNYC · 01-24-08, 02:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vader

Income tax was created to pay for a war --- it was NEVER intended to be a permenant fixture.

Incorrect. Re-read the thread.

Quote:

Income tax needs to be abolished in favor a federal sales tax of about 6% on food and 12% on all non-esentals. This sales tax would only apply to those who make more than $120,000 per year and would be used to fund the government in the same fashion as the current income tax.

I realize Republicans do not like this idea because it would prevent them weasling out of paying their fair share; however, that is too damn bad. It's time for Republicans to live by the same crooked standards they have forced on the middle class and working poor for the last 200 years.

Hilarious. One question for you - Why WOULDN'T these "blood-sucking millionaires" you talk about LOVE your plan? 12% is a lot less than what they're paying in taxes right now.

RightinNYC · 01-24-08, 02:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by American

No, because the 16th Amendment gave the government the right to put its hand directly into your pocket. Are ya feelin' it?

The real question should be, do you believe in direct or indirect taxes in the US. The federal government, or the United States as it is called in the Constitution, is a federation of States and therefore to be funded by the States. That is why Section 8 calls for an indirect tax based on apportionment. Well since the Constitution was bastardized by a few clowns in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, we now vote directly for our US Senators and we pay direct taxes to the federal govt.

Isn't it just grand?

By "bastardized," you mean duly amended, correct? Or is the Bill of Rights just a "bastardization"?

ARealConservative · 01-24-08, 02:48 PM

arguing with a judicial apologist over the 16th amendment goes beyond silly.

If he ever wants to work a day in his life in the system, he better agree with the current interpretation (and legality) of that amendment.

Go for the low hanging fruit.