eklypse0 (October 9, 2008 at 6:20 pm)

Paying Taxes today is _not_ patriotic. It is foolish. The government of today, as of the Bailout/Sellout, is not representing the people's choice. Of all the people I have talked about in this issue, nine out of ten oppose the bail out. The Government Website's own pole showed 72% against. 700+ billion of our money to go into the pockets of people who made foolish investments. Investments that if the common person made would make them broke or PUT IN JAIL!

eklypse0 (October 9, 2008 at 6:17 pm)

That depends on what taxes you are talking about. The biggest tax is the one most people rally against, the Subtitle A Income Tax. That tax money does not go to Police, Fire fighters, or Rescue workers. It is also the biggest drain on the economy then any thing else, other then Bush's spending.

Killerpidgeonstudios (October 9, 2008 at 3:59 pm)

GOD HOW RETARDED just goes to show the americans like anything that goes boom LOL

eklypse0 (October 6, 2008 at 11:08 pm)

[The 16th Amendment made it constitutional to tax incomes from whatever source derived. ] You had just said that Congress _always_ had the power to tax individual earnings. So, are you incompetent or did you just lie earlier? Either it was unconstitutional, in which case it is false that Congress always had the power to tax individual earnings. Or the 16th amendment gave them the power. However, the courts ruled that it gave no new powers or subjects of taxation. Either way, No individual tax

RetSquid (October 6, 2008 at 4:15 pm)

"Webster's Dictionary....." If true, then the definition has changed over time. One definition now is: "the ratio of such pecuniary gain to the amount of capital invested"...whatever your gain (income)is from your capital (time/labor). "It seems to me that if something is unconstitutional, then, by definition, Congress has no authority over it." The 16th Amendment made it constitutional to tax incomes from whatever source derived.

eklypse0 (October 6, 2008 at 1:17 pm)

Webster's Dictionary at the time the 16th Amendment was created defined Income as Profit from Corporate gains. If individual earnings were subject to taxation by Congress, then why was such activities ruled as Unconstitutional by the Supreme Court after Abraham Lincoln applied it? It seems to me that if something is unconstitutional, then, by definition, Congress has no authority over it.

RetSquid (October 6, 2008 at 6:11 am)

"The Sixteenth Amendment declares that Congress shall have power to levy and collect taxes on income, 'from whatever source derived' without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration. It was not the purpose or the effect of that amendment to bring any new subject within the taxing power. Congress already had the power to tax all incomes." Bowers, Collector v. Kerbaugh-Empire Co The courts don't agree with you.

RetSquid (October 6, 2008 at 6:10 am)

"They neither may conflict with original amendments, nor conflict with the bill of rights" So, you have to be 21 year old white male landowner to vote? An amendment changes the original document. Otherwise what the point of having an amendment?

eklypse0 (October 5, 2008 at 11:20 pm)

Income taxes ARE indirect/excise taxes which are the profits from utilizing federal resources, whether they be powers, land or taxes. When the words, "from what ever source derived" was added to the 16th, it was understood that the sources were derived from within this limitation. That is why so few people owed Income Taxes for a long time after the 16th was supposedly ratified. Their earnings did not fall under the legal term "Income" as defined by SCOTUS within the defining cases.

eklypse0 (October 5, 2008 at 9:13 pm)

[Actually I think they said 'it may not confict with itself' meaning within the amendment. ] NO, an amendment may not conflict with another. Amendments only extend the power of the government. They neither may conflict with original amendments, nor conflict with the bill of rights.