Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[fourthgeek]

16th Amendment
In 1895, in the Supreme Court case of Pollock v Farmer's Loan and Trust (157 U.S. 429), the Court disallowed a federal income tax. The tax was designed to be an indirect tax, which would mean that states need not contribute portions of a whole relative to its census figures. The Court, however, ruled that the income tax was a direct tax and subject to apportionment. This was the last in a series of conflicting court decisions dating back to the Civil War. Between 1895 and 1909, when the amendment was passed by Congress, the Court began to back down on its position, as it became clear not only to accountants but to everyone that the solvency of the nation was in jeopardy. In a series of cases, the definition of "direct tax" was modified, bent, twisted, and coaxed to allow more taxation efforts that approached an income tax.

Finally, with the ratification of the 16th Amendment, any doubt was removed. The text of the Amendment makes it clear that though the categories of direct and indirect taxation still exist, any determination that income tax is a direct tax will be irrelevant, because taxes on incomes are explicitly to be treated as indirect. The Congress passed the Amendment on July 12, 1909, and it was ratified on February 3, 1913 (1,302 days).

[Lex]

It is my belief that everything that is happening today is explicitely allowed and even encouraged by the United States Constitution.

Here is the "government can do whatever the hell they want" clause:

United States Constitution
Article I.
Section 8.

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

[Atlas]

The Founders never meant for this clause to be used as it is today. They understood that it could be abused, but the original intent was to extrapolate on Congress' foregoing seventeen powers. If it was meant to be used as it is today, this would've nullified the concept of federalism and quite a few of the (amendments) in the bill of rights. So, essentially this clause has been bastardized.

[Lex]

The Founders never meant for this clause to be used as it is today.

How do you know what they did or didn't mean?

[Dreepa]

Lex what about these:
Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

[Lex]

The way I see it is that the "founding fathers" created only the Constitution so when judging it you cannot also take into account the Amendments. Without the Amendments looking strictly at the constitution you can see that the founding fathers were not the nicest guys around. Everything that the revolutionaries fought for and enumerated in the Declaration of Independence was obliterated by the Constitution and later patched up by Amendments to keep people quiet. There are just so many contradictions between the Constitution and the Amendments that you can't look at it as a single document. When one part says that the government can do whatever the heck they want and another part says that the government can't infringe the rights of people, how do you know which one takes precedent? Whome do you think the Constitution sides with, the Government or the People? Does the first amendment allow us to say whatever we want on the radio or does the constitution allow our government to keep tranquility by making sure nobody says anything too controversial? The Constitution and the Amendments are so vague that it can easily be interpreted by opposing parties to support both of their sides.

[Lex]

Anyways, this is getting offtopic! 

I'm much more interested in the MAS than the Constitution anyways! 

[Braddogg]

I'm no tax expert, but if, in this barter system, everything is called a gift, is that a good loophole?

According to the Advocates for Self-Government, Sec. 102 (A) of the Internal Revenue Code says: "Gross income does not include the value of property acquired by gift, bequest, devise, or inheritance."

I think the barter idea is a great one.

[KBCraig]

Anyways, this is getting offtopic! 

I'm much more interested in the MAS than the Constitution anyways! 

I have a MAS-36 and a MAS-36/51 for sale.

You were speaking of Manufacture Armes de Saint-Etienne, right? 

Kevin

[tracysaboe]

I'm no tax expert, but if, in this barter system, everything is called a gift, is that a good loophole?

According to the Advocates for Self-Government, Sec. 102 (A) of the Internal Revenue Code says: "Gross income does not include the value of property acquired by gift, bequest, devise, or inheritance."

I think the barter idea is a great one.

If any the totals of all the gifts from any one person to any other person is more then $50,000 for any given year (or whatever if currently is.) the giver could owe gift taxes.

Tracy

[Pat McCotter]

If any the totals of all the gifts from any one person to any other person is more then $50,000 for any given year (or whatever if currently is.) the giver could owe gift taxes.

Tracy

"If you give people a lot of money or property, you might have to pay a federal gift tax. But most gifts are not subject to the gift tax. For instance, you can give up to the annual exclusion amount ($11,000 in 2005) to a person, every year, without facing any gift taxes, and without the recipient owing an income tax on the gifts. And you can give up to $1,000,000 in gifts, total, in your lifetime, before you start owing the gift tax."
http://www.turbotax.com/articles/TheGiftTax.html

[Braddogg]

Perhaps, with the death of the death tax, the gift tax, which, according to the TurboTax link, is derived from trying to close a loophole in the estate tax, will fall as well.

[fourthgeek]

So ours would be something like a gift exchange, with a central body keeping track of the value (in Santapoints) that each person has bequeathed through the system, and thus how much is owed (in good will) by each person.

fourthgeek: hey Braddog, i'd sure like that package of hot dog buns.
braddog: take it. it's my gift to you. just let me register this with the gift exchange program. how does 30 santapoints sound?
fourthgeek: sure. my username is xxkissesxx.
braddog: *clickity type type* or *swipity scan scan*
fourthgeek: i had 200 santapoints, now i have 170 santapoints.
braddog: i owed 20 santapoints, now i have positive 10 santapoints. good thing, or else i might have been kicked out of the entire mutual aid program, been shunned by the community, and lose access to other Cool Features (tm).

i would have a lower limit on how much can be "owed", so that a minimum of loss would be sustained.

One problem I forsee is that since a gift is a gift, it cannot be repossessed by the mutual aid society or even the government. that is, unless we redefine gift within the scope of our mutual aid society.

[tracysaboe]

If any the totals of all the gifts from any one person to any other person is more then $50,000 for any given year (or whatever if currently is.) the giver could owe gift taxes.

Tracy

"If you give people a lot of money or property, you might have to pay a federal gift tax. But most gifts are not subject to the gift tax. For instance, you can give up to the annual exclusion amount ($11,000 in 2005) to a person, every year, without facing any gift taxes, and without the recipient owing an income tax on the gifts. And you can give up to $1,000,000 in gifts, total, in your lifetime, before you start owing the gift tax."
http://www.turbotax.com/articles/TheGiftTax.html

Thanks for clearing that up Pat

Tracy