• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Could taxation kill our Bill of Rights?

Where does the power end?


  • Total voters
    10

fredmertzz

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 28, 2012
Messages
481
Reaction score
194
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Taking this SCOTUS decision to an inevitable (IMO) next step, that could come from either party: eliminating our Bill or Rights.

For example, given the recent ACA ruling, what would stop Congress from creating the following 'tax':

"All citizens will have a 5% tax increase on their earned income. Likewise, if those citizens are not found to have spoken or written negatively about Barack Obama during the calendar year, they will receive a 5% tax credit"

They aren't FORCIBLY taking away free speech. They're just taxing us and encouraging us how to speak to help prevent those taxes. They aren't FORCING us to buy Health Care. They're just encouraging us by giving us a tax break to a tax they just created.

I don't believe it will get this far today; I believe the people have the intelligence enough today to stop it. But with each generation accepting these new 'rights' of our government, such laws become more likely. Today, they wouldn't think of passing an amendment to prohibit alcohol or any other substance. Once, Congress understood that it was beyond their power to force such a thing without granting themselves such power within the constitution.

The 10th Amendment, IMO, is dead. Long live the King?
 
The SCOTUS does not make law, they simply evaluate law as to whether it conforms to the constitution, or not. It is NOT "judicial activism" to declare a law, or lower court ruling based on law, as unconstitional. Justice Roberts wrote a "majority" opinion that NO other justice, even those voting for making the PPACA law stand, would sign on to.

The federal power to tax INCOME (IRS) comes only from the 16th amendment, that simply allows INCOME from all sources to be taxed. IMHO, Roberts has, in fact, become an "activist" judge in allowing HOW INCOME WAS SPENT, rather that simply the income itself, to be subjected to taxation. Two citizens both making EXACTLY $50K in income (from any source) should not be taxed any more, or less, than the other, based on the 14th amendment requiring EQUAL protection under the law.

The nonsense of our 80,000+ pages of FIT law with the majority of that law addressing how income was spent with credits, deductions and exclusions based NOT on the source of the income, but how that income was LATER spent, is unconstitutional. The SCOTUS is far to lenient in giving even a slight INDIRECT relationship to a federally authorized power, to serve as a reason to say that a law is constitutional. Simply using the IRS as a collection agency does NOT make the PPACA fine/penalty LEGAL, as NOTHING in the constitution gives the federal gov't power to order a citizen to buy a private product or service, to reward them for doing so or to punish them for not doing so.
 
Last edited:
For example, given the recent ACA ruling, what would stop Congress from creating the following 'tax':

"All citizens will have a 5% tax increase on their earned income. Likewise, if those citizens are not found to have spoken or written negatively about Barack Obama during the calendar year, they will receive a 5% tax credit"

The First Amendment would stop them from doing that.

They aren't FORCIBLY taking away free speech. They're just taxing us and encouraging us how to speak to help prevent those taxes. They aren't FORCING us to buy Health Care. They're just encouraging us by giving us a tax break to a tax they just created.

The difference between those two situations is that Congress is specifically prohibited from abridging your right to freedom of speech in the Constitution; no such prohibition exists on regulating your health care. Any "encouragement" about how to speak would be a violation of the First Amendment, and the courts have almost always viewed such "encouragement" that way.
 
Last edited:
Could taxation kill our Bill of Rights?

you mean the part that was left after the failed war on some drugs and the WOT?

yeah, the crumb of it that's left is put in real danger by health care.
 
The same thing that stopped congress from doing it a month ago. The tax and spend power is not unlimited. It must be in pursuit of a legitimate government purpose. Most of the things that people are suddenly terrified will be forced upon then via a tax are NOT constitutionally allowed purposes. Public health is. And rightly so.

Keep in mind that this could all have been avoided of conservatives hadn't done everything in their power to kill single payer and the public option. If this decision does all of the things you're afraid it does (though it doesn't), you have no one but yourselves to blame.
 
Taking this SCOTUS decision to an inevitable (IMO) next step, that could come from either party: eliminating our Bill or Rights.

For example, given the recent ACA ruling, what would stop Congress from creating the following 'tax':

"All citizens will have a 5% tax increase on their earned income. Likewise, if those citizens are not found to have spoken or written negatively about Barack Obama during the calendar year, they will receive a 5% tax credit"

They aren't FORCIBLY taking away free speech. They're just taxing us and encouraging us how to speak to help prevent those taxes. They aren't FORCING us to buy Health Care. They're just encouraging us by giving us a tax break to a tax they just created.

I don't believe it will get this far today; I believe the people have the intelligence enough today to stop it. But with each generation accepting these new 'rights' of our government, such laws become more likely. Today, they wouldn't think of passing an amendment to prohibit alcohol or any other substance. Once, Congress understood that it was beyond their power to force such a thing without granting themselves such power within the constitution.

The 10th Amendment, IMO, is dead. Long live the King?

Actually I think what killed our Bill of Rights was the secret courts and drastic surveillance without warrants.
 
Lets put it this way...Unless we begin to have fair and equitable taxation, we will have far more serious problems than just the Bill of Rights.
And "news-flash" !
The rights are not unlimited !
 
FDR pretty well killed the tenth amendment and seriously damaged the Second Amendment and part of the 14th Amendment (yeah I know its not part of the bill of rights but it incorporated those rights). The taxation powers and the commerce clause have both become end arounds the tenth amendment and the entire raison d'être of the constitution--to create a federal government of LIMITED powers
 
Lets put it this way...Unless we begin to have fair and equitable taxation, we will have far more serious problems than just the Bill of Rights.
And "news-flash" !
The rights are not unlimited !

Fair taxation being everyone pay the same since they each have the same citizenship rights?

or fair being each paying the same amount out of every dollar they have for the government?
 
The libertarian right simply cannot pass up any opportunity - even a weak one - to further the cause celebre of attacking Franklin Roosevelt.
 
Fair taxation being everyone pay the same since they each have the same citizenship rights?

or fair being each paying the same amount out of every dollar they have for the government?

There is no financial cost for using the Constitutional rights of citizenship. Any basic civics text will tell you that.

And your 'argument' (if that is what it is) for a flat tax has dealt with a century ago and crushed and flushed, trashed and smashed. And it was REPUBLICANS in Congress which led the effort.
 
The libertarian right simply cannot pass up any opportunity - even a weak one - to further the cause celebre of attacking Franklin Roosevelt.

FDR did more to crap on the bill of rights and his turds have lasted longer than any other president
 
There is no financial cost for using the Constitutional rights of citizenship. Any basic civics text will tell you that.

And your 'argument' (if that is what it is) for a flat tax has dealt with a century ago and crushed and flushed, trashed and smashed. And it was REPUBLICANS in Congress which led the effort.

Uh you are wrong. How many times have lefties posted that swill that taxes are the cost of citizenship.

nothing has been smashed--only the welfare socialists and the parasite leftwing reactionary statists have been upset over a tax that castrates their power to buy the votes of the many with the money of a few.

politicians love a tax that allows them to buy the votes of the mediocre with the money of the productive
 
Uh you are wrong. How many times have lefties posted that swill that taxes are the cost of citizenship.

nothing has been smashed--only the welfare socialists and the parasite leftwing reactionary statists have been upset over a tax that castrates their power to buy the votes of the many with the money of a few.

politicians love a tax that allows them to buy the votes of the mediocre with the money of the productive

I have never heard anybody here - let alone those on the progressive side - say that taxes are the cost of citizenship. Do please link to some posts which say just that?

Perhaps you have heard of something called the US Constitution?

Perhaps you are aware of an amendment in that document which forbids the connection of monetary payment to voting rights?

On second thought, it seems you have no idea about either.

Money of the productive? Or is that the lucky who are born with silver spoon in mouth courtesy of Mumsy and Daddykins and their trust funds? That hardly makes them productive.

I have great respect for the self made honest person who hits it big. But not the silk diaper crowd.
 
Last edited:
FDR did more to crap on the bill of rights and his turds have lasted longer than any other president

The far right gives you brownie points for furthering the libertarian war on FDR. Check that - furthering is a really bad descriptor of your efforts. Let us say CONTINUING the libertarian war on FDR. :roll:
 
I have never heard anybody here - let alone those on the progressive side - say that taxes are the cost of citizenship. Do please link to some posts which say just that?

Perhaps you have heard of something called the US Constitution?

Perhaps you are aware of an amendment in that document which forbids the connection of monetary payment to voting rights?

On second thought, it seems you have no idea about either.

Money of the productive? Or is that the lucky who are born with silver spoon in mouth courtesy of Mumsy and Daddykins and their trust funds? That hardly makes them productive.

I have great respect for the self made honest person who hits it big. But not the silk diaper crowd.

I don't think you want to play games as to who knows the most about the constitution.

I realize you hate those whose parents were frugal and worked hard for their children. You think that is unfair to those whose parents were lazy, untalented or spendthrifts. If you had so much respect for self made men you wouldn't support higher taxes on them or advocate taking so much of what they made in derogation of their wishes as to what should happen to their wealth when they die. You just make that claim when it helps you attack those who have the good fortune of productive parents.
 
The far right gives you brownie points for furthering the libertarian war on FDR. Check that - furthering is a really bad descriptor of your efforts. Let us say CONTINUING the libertarian war on FDR. :roll:

this country would be far better off now if someone had prevented FDR from taking office in 1932 or had beat him in 32 or 36. He set the stage for most of the unconstitutional dependency addiction that your party gains so much power from
 
I have great respect for the self made honest person who hits it big. But not the silk diaper crowd.
No you dont. You have no less thirst for the wealth of the productive than you do for the wealth of their heirs. Your ideology, such as it is, is based entirely upon legalized theft. The left is nothing but a pack of moral and monetary vampires sucking the blood of their betters.
 
No you dont. You have no less thirst for the wealth of the productive than you do for the wealth of their heirs. Your ideology, such as it is, is based entirely upon legalized theft. The left is nothing but a pack of moral and monetary vampires sucking the blood of their betters.

Quoted for truth. He believes the government needs to be fed more and more and more and more
 
Quoted for truth. He believes the government needs to be fed more and more and more and more

Which is a huge LIE.

I have repeatedly stated my support to cut at least 300 billion dollars from the federal budget.
 
No you dont. You have no less thirst for the wealth of the productive than you do for the wealth of their heirs. Your ideology, such as it is, is based entirely upon legalized theft. The left is nothing but a pack of moral and monetary vampires sucking the blood of their betters.

What IDEOLOGY is that exactly?
 
our constitutional rights are free?
 
What IDEOLOGY is that exactly?
You are more anti-ideology actually. That is why I qualified my statement with "such as it is." As for the psychological reasons behind the adoption and adoration of leftism, you would have to ask a professional. But I would guess that the leading causes would be envy, immaturity, and fear brought on by a lack of self esteem.
 
Which is a huge LIE.

I have repeatedly stated my support to cut at least 300 billion dollars from the federal budget.

But you want the following

1) everyone to pay at least 5% more

2) the tax on dividends to go from 15% to up to 40%

3) same with LTCG

4) death taxes to be the same as income taxes meaning no one million or 5 million dollar exemption

5) those making more than the FICA ceiling paying 7% on every penny they earn

so you do want to feed the government billions more and you want the rich to suffer HUGE tax increases
 
Back
Top Bottom