Copy of Non-Stimulus bill - Make over $75k? You pay for others tax cuts

[Bootlegged]

Unfuckingbelievable. Spread the wealth - fucking Robin Hood..

http://finance.senate.gov/press/Bpress/2009press/prb021209.pdf

[MIAdragon]

Yay!! :rolleyes:

[J Diddy]

Awesome. So they're not just printing the money it's actually being paid for.

[Bootlegged]

So, according to Dumbo, 95% of Americans make less than $75k (single) or $150k (married). No wonder he wants control of the Census.

[Deberg_1990]

So, according to Dumbo, 95% of Americans make less than $75k (single) or $150k (married). No wonder he wants control of the Census.

The majority of lower income populus have no idea how our govenment functions. They think its just free money. Yippee!

[J Diddy]

The majority of lower income populus have no idea how our govenment functions. They think its just free money. Yippee!

I would gladly trade a salary of 150000 annually combined for my wife and I and pay higher taxes on it then just getting 800 extra. Anyone want to swap?

[Guru]

Thank God it is $150k for married. Don't need him stealing my money. When I first saw it I thought it was 75K for married. We are just barely over that.

[Stewie]

This is AGI. Unless you're stupid you don't fall into this category unless you make six figures (single) $180K (joint). It's still a stupid bill and I'm ready for the Michigan Lake Tea Party.

[Jenson71]

So, according to Dumbo, 95% of Americans make less than $75k (single) or $150k (married). No wonder he wants control of the Census.

Do you think that stat is wrong?

[Bootlegged]

Income redistribution - all this is. This is criminal - at least it was in the US.

[Bootlegged]

Do you think that stat is wrong?

It is 100% wrong.

[Jenson71]

It is 100% wrong.

What is the percent then?

[Bootlegged]

This is AGI. Unless you're stupid you don't fall into this category unless you make six figures (single) $180K (joint). It's still a stupid bill and I'm ready for the Michigan Lake Tea Party.

A lot more than 5% of Americans make six figures.

[Bootlegged]

What is the percent then?

According to who? Reality or Obama?

[Guru]

A lot more than 5% of Americans make six figures.Is it 5% of Americans or 5% of working Americans?

[Hydrae]

According to who? Reality or Obama?

Whom


Reality would be interesting but give us whatever you got and we will go from there.

[Stewie]

A lot more than 5% of Americans make six figures.

Wow! I didn't realize every 20th person made 100+ grand. That's news right there.

[Jenson71]

According to who? Reality or Obama?

Reality

[J Diddy]

A lot more than 5% of Americans make six figures.


Link? or are you just making it up

[J Diddy]

Wow! I didn't realize every 20th person made 100+ grand. That's news right there.



Damn!!!!


I am unlucky number 19.

[Jenson71]

According to who? Reality or Obama?

Reality

[J Diddy]

Reality

Don't get upset. He needs time to search through every right wing "news" source to prove his claim.

[Jenson71]

"Real median household income in the United States climbed 1.3 percent between 2006 and 2007, reaching $50,233, according to a report released today by the U.S. Census Bureau. This is the third annual increase in real median household income."

http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/income_wealth/012528.html

If your household makes almost three times more than the median, I'm supposed to feel sorry or outrage for you? Why? You can't trade in last years model for this year's?

[bobbymitch]

According to the National Taxpayer Union -
Top 1% of AGI had an average AGI of $388,806
Top 5% of AGI had an average AGI of $153,542

[Guru]

"Real median household income in the United States climbed 1.3 percent between 2006 and 2007, reaching $50,233, according to a report released today by the U.S. Census Bureau. This is the third annual increase in real median household income."

http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/income_wealth/012528.html

If your household makes almost three times more than the median, I'm supposed to feel sorry or outrage for you? Why? You can't trade in last years model for this year's?Though I would love to be making $150k as a household, I would hardly call it well off in this day and age.

If you don't live above your means though, 150k should be more than enough.

[Stewie]

According to the National Taxpayer Union -
Top 1% of AGI had an average AGI of $388,806
Top 5% of AGI had an average AGI of $153,542

This tells us nothing. How are these filed? What percentage of this number are wages vs. other income?

[stevieray]

Though I would love to be making $150k as a household, I would hardly call it well off in this day and age.

If you don't live above your means though, 150k should be more than enough.

if you make 40k , you're richer than most of the world.

[BucEyedPea]

"Real median household income in the United States climbed 1.3 percent between 2006 and 2007, reaching $50,233, according to a report released today by the U.S. Census Bureau. This is the third annual increase in real median household income."

http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/income_wealth/012528.html

If your household makes almost three times more than the median, I'm supposed to feel sorry or outrage for you? Why? You can't trade in last years model for this year's?

Yeah, but what about inflation? Is that factored in against that rise? If not then income has declined. My bet is on the latter.

[NickAthanFan]

The people that don't care or are happy about this are the one's that aren't paying.

Easy to do when you're not the one footing the bill.

[Taco John]

I would gladly trade a salary of 150000 annually combined for my wife and I and pay higher taxes on it then just getting 800 extra. Anyone want to swap?


You and your wife couldn't manage the money and the job responsibility. You'd be out of a job in no time, and losing the house.

Keep your $800 bucks. That's what you can handle.

[Taco John]

Though I would love to be making $150k as a household, I would hardly call it well off in this day and age.

If you don't live above your means though, 150k should be more than enough.


More than enough for what?

[Guru]

if you make 40k , you're richer than most of the world.Well, I am only referring to the USA.

More than enough for what? to live a good life.

[Taco John]

to live a good life.




Says who?

[J Diddy]

You and your wife couldn't manage the money and the job responsibility. You'd be out of a job in no time, and losing the house.

Keep your $800 bucks. That's what you can handle.

ROFL

Please do tell. Since you know me so well.

[Guru]

Says who?I'm living a fairly good life on a combined income of $75k. I would think it would be pretty easy at $150k.

[Calcountry]

I would gladly trade a salary of 150000 annually combined for my wife and I and pay higher taxes on it then just getting 800 extra. Anyone want to swap?That depends on whether or not you are skilled and competent enough to do the job.

You think 100K jobs are easy money, don't you?

[NickAthanFan]

Who decides when you make 'enough'?

[Calcountry]

Income redistribution - all this is. This is criminal - at least it was in the US.This is the USof O now.

[Calcountry]

Who decides when you make 'enough'?Obama and his Ombudsmen. "This is not the time for profits".

[chiefforlife]

Everyone wants to fix the problem but no one wants to help.

[J Diddy]

That depends on whether or not you are skilled and competent enough to do the job.

You think 100K jobs are easy money, don't you?



Is ditch digging easy money?

[orange]

"Real median household income in the United States climbed 1.3 percent between 2006 and 2007, reaching $50,233, according to a report released today by the U.S. Census Bureau. This is the third annual increase in real median household income."

http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/income_wealth/012528.html


Yeah, but what about inflation? Is that factored in against that rise? If not then income has declined. My bet is on the latter.


In economics, "REAL" means "adjusted for inflation."

[Iowanian]

Is ditch digging easy money?

No. I dug my share of ditches and trenches during a couple of summers putting myself through college.

One of those trenches was a 200' gas line in the decomposed granite of the Rocky Mountains with a pick axe and a spade. I later hand dug the footings for a horse barn I built as a side job.

Digging 6' around a backfilled school foundation in the muck and mud in 93 sucked, almost as bad as being 10-15' down a trench putting in sewer lines.


These are things I did, to get an education, to try to get to the imcome bracket being burdened by non-producer Americans. When I get there, working the hours I do, I'll deserve it...not the neighbors a couple of doors up in "the lord of the flies" house who sponge off of the govt.

[orange]

Income redistribution - all this is. This is criminal - at least it was in the US.

It's "Progressive Taxation." It's been in effect in America since at least 1861:

"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."

Of course, maybe Lincoln was an un-American pinko in your eyes.

http://www.treas.gov/education/fact-sheets/taxes/ustax.shtml

[Iowanian]

Income is also relative.

While Jdoody may do just fine on his combined income in the city he lives(and I'm sure I'd do just fine on that number in my community), the cost of living in other areas skew numbers.

$100k in many areas isn't enough to allow a person to buy a home.

Thats why I laugh in these discussions. My home, in current condition would probably be worth 5-6x its value here, if placed in Many other places in the country.


Hell....alot of independent truck drivers make $100k. They trade that salary for being away from home for weeks at a time, and their family lives. I don't know too many of them that I'd consider "wealthy".

[Jenson71]

Income is also relative.

While Jdoody may do just fine on his combined income in the city he lives(and I'm sure I'd do just fine on that number in my community), the cost of living in other areas skew numbers.

$100k in many areas isn't enough to allow a person to buy a home.

Thats why I laugh in these discussions. My home, in current condition would probably be worth 5-6x its value here, if placed in Many other places in the country.


Hell....alot of independent truck drivers make $100k. They trade that salary for being away from home for weeks at a time, and their family lives. I don't know too many of them that I'd consider "wealthy".

I like how you point out $100k isn't much in many areas. Then when you consider the median for households everywhere is a little over $50k, it kind of makes you wonder what life is like for those people that live in those areas that make less than $50k.

[Taco John]

I'm living a fairly good life on a combined income of $75k. I would think it would be pretty easy at $150k.


What does anybody care what kind of life you're living at $75k? That's kind of conceited of you to chain the rest of the nation's living standards based on what you get by on.

This nation gets more and more spiritually socialist every day with people thinking like this.

[Taco John]

ROFL

Please do tell. Since you know me so well.

I don't need to know you. All I need to know is that you desire what people have without having to earn it for yourself. Looters mentality.

[Iowanian]

In a community where the median household income is $30k as it is in several of the rural counties in Iowa....$50k is a pretty good living. Living even in West DesMoines on that is another story.

I know plenty about living in an area with a significantly lower than average median household income. I also know that money doesn't have everything to do with quality of life. I also know that people who have spent years and years of their lives working and preparing for careers, and building value in the workplace, don't deserve to be punished financially to make up EVEN MORE for the slacker-Americans who don't pull their weight....in addition to those that just can't.


I'll be more likely to put more stock into your opinions on the topic when you've actually been in the workforce and not cuddling in the safety of academia's blanket.

I'm confident you'll be a producer-American Jensen, but right now, when you're not the one working until June of each year just to pay taxes, you're pretty damn liberal with other peoples' need for their own money.

In my community, a family bringing home 60k could live in a nice home and do alright...the same family with the same income in say, Seattle would much less better off. thats why its a bad number game.

[BucEyedPea]

In economics, "REAL" means "adjusted for inflation."

I don't believe that then. Especially since the inflation stats were revised years ago. And because it's a govt stat.
The state lies.

[BucEyedPea]

It's "Progressive Taxation." It's been in effect in America since at least 1861:

"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."

Of course, maybe Lincoln was an un-American pinko in your eyes.

http://www.treas.gov/education/fact-sheets/taxes/ustax.shtml
And it was declared unConstitutional by the SC too. So it wasn't in effect since then. Too bad the courts abandoned strict construction in the modern era...to change our govt from what it was to what some wanted it to be. Note it was a mercantilist Republican that passed this one....and later it would be Rs again in the 20th century to impose another one....only this time they used the amendment process at least. But you can't say it was in effect since 1861.

[orange]

What does anybody care what kind of life you're living at $75k? That's kind of conceited of you to chain the rest of the nation's living standards based on what you get by on.

This nation gets more and more spiritually socialist every day with people thinking like this.

I don't need to know you. All I need to know is that you desire what people have without having to earn it for yourself. Looters mentality.

Which great Socialist thinker wrote this?

The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. A tax upon house-rents, therefore, would in general fall heaviest upon the rich; and in this sort of inequality there would not, perhaps, be anything very unreasonable. It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.


[edit] Adam Smith in Wealth of Nations. Another un-American pinko like Lincoln this nation would be well rid of. Credit to BucEyedPea for correct answer.

[Guru]

What does anybody care what kind of life you're living at $75k? That's kind of conceited of you to chain the rest of the nation's living standards based on what you get by on.

This nation gets more and more spiritually socialist every day with people thinking like this.I guess I apologize to you for being content with where I am in life right now. How the fuck am I socialist? I earn my keep and take care of my family. I don't ask for handouts from people that make more than me.

Just because you may not like my point of view does not make me socialist. Hell I have been on your side for practically every point you make on this site. Now you throw me over for one view?

[orange]

And it was declare unConstitutional by the SC too.

You'll have to show me that. I never heard of any such decision. The Income Tax that evolved out of that Revenue Act was abolished in 1872 - BY CONGRESS.

Besides which, ever hear of the 16th Amendment?

[BucEyedPea]

Adam Smith

By the way it was errors of ASmith which Marx adopted and exploited, which the Austrian School eventually debunked effectively. He wasn't really right about everything. Besides how you handle the matter of the poor is what would be categorized properly as a form of socialism. They had what was called "levelers'' in the days of the early republic. Most of our Founders didn't agree with them.

[BucEyedPea]

You'll have to show me that. I never heard of any such decision. The Income Tax that evolved out of that Revenue Act was abolished in 1872 - BY CONGRESS.

Besides which, ever hear of the 16th Amendment?

Did you not see me refer to it above? I did.

[orange]

I don't believe that then. Especially since the inflation stats were revised years ago. And because it's a govt stat.
The state lies.

Don't be a jerk. This is a STANDARD DEFINITION. Here's one source - sorry it's so simple. I guess they believe only the simple-minded wouldn't understand it.

"Real dollars -- These are dollars that have been adjusted for inflation."

http://teachmefinance.com/Scientific_Terms/Real_dollars.html

[orange]

Did you not see me refer to it above? I did.

Upon further review, I see an arcane reference to the Amendment - but I STILL doubt your premise that Income Tax was ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. I'm still awaiting any information about that.

p.s.

Adam Smith

By the way it was errors of ASmith which Marx adopted and exploited, which the Austrian School eventually debunked effectively.


ROFL at the idea that anything from the failed and repudiated Austrian School can be described as "effective."

[bobbymitch]

This tells us nothing. How are these filed? What percentage of this number are wages vs. other income?

It tells you what you need to know. As tax breaks are based upon AGI, it makes no difference if it is listed under a W-2 or a 1099. The data is from the IRS.

[BucEyedPea]

You'll have to show me that. I never heard of any such decision. The Income Tax that evolved out of that Revenue Act was abolished in 1872 - BY CONGRESS.

Besides which, ever hear of the 16th Amendment?
I heard of it in the late 1980's.

The National Archives (http://www.archives.gov/publications/prologue/1986/winter/civil-war-tax-records.html)

But the Supreme Court surprised the nation, reversing its earlier decision and declaring the law [income tax] unconstitutional in 1895. This ruling, declaring that an income tax is a direct tax and therefore unconstitutional, led to the ratification of the sixteenth amendment in 1913.

Direct taxes were unconstitutional...even if it took awhile for the courts to get around to the decision.

[BucEyedPea]

Upon further review, I see an arcane reference to the Amendment - but I STILL doubt your premise that Income Tax was ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. I'm still awaiting any information about that.

It's not my premise. It's a fact. See my link on the previous page. Just give a second for me to find a proper link. I've never seen it on the net.

[Jenson71]

The things I'm getting from the lewrockwell capitalists in this thread are that:

1. We shouldn't think about other people, because that's the socialist agenda
2. When Adam Smith says something contrary to popular ideas of capitalism, it's important to discredit him by pointing to the fabulous untried improvements made in someone's imagination.

[Guru]

The things I'm getting from the lewrockwell capitalists in this thread are that:

1. We shouldn't think about other people, because that's the socialist agenda
2. When Adam Smith says something contrary to popular ideas of capitalism, it's important to discredit him by pointing to the fabulous untried improvements made in someone's imagination.There is a difference between helping other people willingly and being forced to help other people though. I understand that not everyone does what they can for the less fortunate but I don't feel we should force them to.

[BucEyedPea]

ROFL at the idea that anything from the failed and repudiated Austrian School can be described as "effective."

That's all ya' got? Nuthin to really say that refutes that school except sarcasm and a smiley?

It's one of the first things I learned in my classes under Austrian School professors. It was Smith's labor theory of value which Marx adopted. It's a fallacy. The value of something is set by the market aka the people. If it cost $10k to produce something and no one wants it—it's worth nothing. Things like that. It's a truthful axiom that can't be denied. No matter how much socialists want govt to set the prices of wages, labor and now toxic assets. Marx was largely ignorant on economics. Which is to be expected from a man who was a bum who lived off others most of his life. A criminal writing a criminal philosophy that has drawn criminals to those ideas. It's also been around for a long time. Primitives practiced a form of collectivism. It's really very, very old....reactionary actually.

And it's illogical to claim AS failed until it has been fully tried. We've had pockets of it.
We had more free markets in the early days of the republic but Federalists sought to impose mercantilism on America early on under Hamilton. That was another one of Marx's errors....what he thought was capitalism ( a word he coined but never defined) was actually mercantilism. Lmao that a whole school of economics took off from such incorrect observations. The Austrian School is based on what actually happens not what outcomes one wants a market to have.

[orange]

After a little googling, I conclude that article referred to Pollock v. Farmers Loan & Trust Company

It didn't directly strike down the Income Tax, but only that portion which derived from income on property.

I'm sure you're right, though, that it was instrumental in getting the 16th Amendment passed because of the fear that the Court would go farther.

Nevertheless, it was ruled on the basis of "apportionality," not anything to do with "progressivity."


The Court handed down its decision on April 8, 1895, with Chief Justice Melville Fuller delivering the opinion of the Court. He ruled in Pollock's favor, stating that certain taxes levied by the Wilson-Gorman Act, to the extent imposed on income from property, were unconstitutional. The Court treated the tax on income from property as a direct tax. Under the provisions of the Constitution of the United States at that time, such direct taxes were required to be imposed in proportion to states' population. The tax in question had not been apportioned and, therefore, was invalid. As Chief Justice Fuller stated:

First. We adhere to the opinion already announced—that, taxes on real estate being indisputably direct taxes, taxes on the rents or income of real estate are equally direct taxes.
Second. We are of opinion that taxes on personal property, or on the income of personal property, are likewise direct taxes.
Third. The tax imposed by sections 27 to 37, inclusive, of the act of 1894, so far as it falls on the income of real estate, and of personal property, being a direct tax, within the meaning of the constitution, and therefore unconstitutional and void, because not apportioned according to representation, all those sections, constituting one entire scheme of taxation, are necessarily invalid.
The decrees hereinbefore entered in this court will be vacated. The decrees below will be reversed, and the cases remanded, with instructions to grant the relief prayed. [158 U.S. 601, 638]
Justices John Marshall Harlan, Jackson, White and Brown dissented from the majority opinion. Justice White argued:

It is, I submit, greatly to be deplored that after more than 100 years of our national existence, after the government has withstood the strain of foreign wars and the dread ordeal of civil strife, and its people have become united and powerful, this court should consider itself compelled to go back to a long repudiated and rejected theory of the constitution, by which the government is deprived of an inherent attribute of its being—a necessary power of taxation. [158 U.S. 638]
In his dissent, Justice Brown wrote:

The decision involves nothing less than the surrender of the taxing power to the moneyed class...Even the spectre of socialism is conjured up to frighten Congress from laying taxes upon the people in proportion to their ability to pay them.

[orange]

That's all ya' got? Nuthin to really say that refutes that school except sarcasm and a smiley?



The recent Election results are all I need to point out how ineffective the Austrian School has been in winning the war of ideas.



I heard of it in the late 1980's.

The National Archives (http://www.archives.gov/publications/prologue/1986/winter/civil-war-tax-records.html)



Direct taxes were unconstitutional...even if it took awhile for the courts to get around to the decision.

Yes. But income taxes aren't Direct Taxes. Property taxes are, and that's what that ruling tossed out - more specifically, income from property.

[BucEyedPea]

After a little googling, I conclude that article referred to Pollock v. Farmers Loan & Trust Company

It didn't directly strike down the Income Tax, but only that portion which derived from income on property. I'm sure you're right, though, that it was instrumental in getting the 16th Amendment passed because of the fear that the Court would go further.

Nevertheless, it was ruled on the basis of "apportionality," not anything to do with "progressivity."


The Court handed down its decision on April 8, 1895, with Chief Justice Melville Fuller delivering the opinion of the Court. He ruled in Pollock's favor, stating that certain taxes levied by the Wilson-Gorman Act, to the extent imposed on income from property, were unconstitutional. The Court treated the tax on income from property as a direct tax. Under the provisions of the Constitution of the United States at that time, such direct taxes were required to be imposed in proportion to states' population. The tax in question had not been apportioned and, therefore, was invalid. As Chief Justice Fuller stated:

First. We adhere to the opinion already announced—that, taxes on real estate being indisputably direct taxes, taxes on the rents or income of real estate are equally direct taxes.
Second. We are of opinion that taxes on personal property, or on the income of personal property, are likewise direct taxes.
Third. The tax imposed by sections 27 to 37, inclusive, of the act of 1894, so far as it falls on the income of real estate, and of personal property, being a direct tax, within the meaning of the constitution, and therefore unconstitutional and void, because not apportioned according to representation, all those sections, constituting one entire scheme of taxation, are necessarily invalid.
The decrees hereinbefore entered in this court will be vacated. The decrees below will be reversed, and the cases remanded, with instructions to grant the relief prayed. [158 U.S. 601, 638]
Justices John Marshall Harlan, Jackson, White and Brown dissented from the majority opinion. Justice White argued:

It is, I submit, greatly to be deplored that after more than 100 years of our national existence, after the government has withstood the strain of foreign wars and the dread ordeal of civil strife, and its people have become united and powerful, this court should consider itself compelled to go back to a long repudiated and rejected theory of the constitution, by which the government is deprived of an inherent attribute of its being—a necessary power of taxation. [158 U.S. 638]
In his dissent, Justice Brown wrote:

The decision involves nothing less than the surrender of the taxing power to the moneyed class...Even the spectre of socialism is conjured up to frighten Congress from laying taxes upon the people in proportion to their ability to pay them.
Uh, income is personal property. Just so you know. So, no, that's not an accurate read on that.

[banyon]

I heard of it in the late 1980's.

The National Archives (http://www.archives.gov/publications/prologue/1986/winter/civil-war-tax-records.html)



Direct taxes were unconstitutional...even if it took awhile for the courts to get around to the decision.

Wow. Just outright naked deception on this topic, huh?

I mean, how irrelevant could it be to try to imply that income taxes were declared unconstitutional and then either fail to recognize (which I doubt) or try to sneak by the fact that the case you referred to took place well before the 16th Amendment was passed, by the lawful method specified in the Constitution overturning and rendering moot that case?

[banyon]

The recent Election results are all I need to point out how ineffective the Austrian School has been in winning the war of ideas.





Yes. But income taxes aren't Direct Taxes. Property taxes are, and that's what that ruling tossed out - more specifically, income from property.

Oh, and nice job pointing out that of course the ruling had nothing to do with progessivity as had been incorrectly implied.

[orange]

Uh, income is personal property. Just so you know. So, no, that's not an accurate read on that.

From the actual decision:

"'Whether direct taxes, in the sense of the constitution, comprehend any other tax than a capitation tax and a tax on land, is a question not absolutely decided, nor is it necessary to determine it in the present case, as it is expressly decided that the term does not include the tax on income, which cannot be distinguished in principle from a succession tax, such as the one involved in the present controversy.'"

[banyon]

Do people realize what taxes on the wealthy used to be in this country? During the 50's when everybody things things were swell and Leave it to Beaver? The high-end marginal rates then were upwards of 70+%

AFAICT, this is a nice remedy to the de facto confiscation of middle and working class wealth performed by Reagan in the early 80's with the Social Security Hike on the middle (and not upper classes).

[BucEyedPea]

From the actual decision:

"'Whether direct taxes, in the sense of the constitution, comprehend any other tax than a capitation tax and a tax on land, is a question not absolutely decided, nor is it necessary to determine it in the present case, as it is expressly decided that the term does not include the tax on income, which cannot be distinguished in principle from a succession tax, such as the one involved in the present controversy.'"
It was still a huge blow to the income tax proponents whose recourse became a Constitutional amendment. The ruling still became law knocking out the income tax at that time. It wasn't absolutely decided per your quote either...nor per this.

In 1895, when the U.S. Supreme Court knocked out an income-tax law in Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan & Trust Co., the champions of income taxation in America suffered a big setback. To reiterate what I said in part two of this series, the Court, contrary to what many people think, did not rule income taxation per se unconstitutional. Quite the opposite. All it did was rule that taxation of income from property had to be apportioned among the states. The reason is that it regarded a tax on such income as equivalent to a tax on the property itself. Since a tax on property was regarded as a direct tax, and the Constitution requires direct taxes to be apportioned according to the census, no such tax could stand without an apportionment clause. Since that clause was lacking in the 1894 tax bill passed by Congress, the Court struck it down. It also struck down the provisions taxing wages and salaries, but only because it believed that putting the full tax burden on workers would violate Congress’s intent to have a broad-based tax.http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0610b.asp



I just looked up some arguments between Madison and Hamilton who couldn't agree what was a direct or indirect tax either; later in the century, per some, it depended on how that income was derived. It's still wrong though. Austrians School treats all income as property which it is when you really look at it. It was treated that way in Britain too. If you look up the definitions to this there are many entries. One being the Austrian us of the term.

[BucEyedPea]

The things I'm getting from the lewrockwell capitalists in this thread are that:

1. We shouldn't think about other people, because that's the socialist agenda


No one said anyone can't think of other people. We're talking about which is the better way to think of other people and whether that way is socialism. It is. Obama said he was for redistribution of wealth during his campaign. Didn't he? Rham advised to exploit this crisis. Didn't he? The socialist were just lying in wait to seize power to do what they've always wanted anyway.

Are you thinking of those who have to foot the bill for this who were frugal? No.

And what we think of other people isn't really a wholesale govt matter. The gov'ts main job is to protect rights.

There are better ways then to destroy the place even more.


2. When Adam Smith says something contrary to popular ideas of capitalism, it's important to discredit him by pointing to the fabulous untried improvements made in someone's imagination.
Now you're just being downright silly. I've brought those points up by Adam Smith long before this crisis...even here. That's like me saying we shouldn't learn anything new. We know more about markets today than before.

[Hydrae]

Wow. Just outright naked deception on this topic, huh?

I mean, how irrelevant could it be to try to imply that income taxes were declared unconstitutional and then either fail to recognize (which I doubt) or try to sneak by the fact that the case you referred to took place well before the 16th Amendment was passed, by the lawful method specified in the Constitution overturning and rendering moot that case?

Actually I believe she was debunking the idea that we have had income tax since 1861. That statement had nothing to do with the 16th amendment, the Pollack decision is between 1861 and 1916.

just sayin...

[BucEyedPea]

Actually I believe she was debunking the idea that we have had income tax since 1861. That statement had nothing to do with the 16th amendment, the Pollack decision is between 1861 and 1916.

just sayin...

That is correct. It was my main original point. There wasn't continum. banyon is projecting.

[banyon]

Actually I believe she was debunking the idea that we have had income tax since 1861. That statement had nothing to do with the 16th amendment, the Pollack decision is between 1861 and 1916.

just sayin...

That wasn't her motive at all, and you can tell from the original post.

And it was declared unConstitutional by the SC too. So it wasn't in effect since then. Too bad the courts abandoned strict construction in the modern era...to change our govt from what it was to what some wanted it to be. Note it was a mercantilist Republican that passed this one....and later it would be Rs again in the 20th century to impose another one....only this time they used the amendment process at least. But you can't say it was in effect since 1861

This pretty clearly states that there's something unconstitutional about the current tax because courts didn't "strictly interpret" although again, that doesn't make any sense because the 16th Amendmentwould override any "strict construction" type of claim.

She obliquely implies things like this all the time that have no bearing in reality, history, or anything beyond a deviant and incorrect interpretation of some event by a few revisionist kooks that are understandably too embarrassing as sources to directly quote.

She thinks I guess that if she can sneak some of this BS by people as if it had legitimacy, then she might be able to hoodwink some people into joining the school of anarchic utopia or whatever.

[orange]

Actually I believe she was debunking the idea that we have had income tax since 1861. That statement had nothing to do with the 16th amendment, the Pollack decision is between 1861 and 1916.

just sayin...

That is correct. It was my main original point. There wasn't continum. banyon is projecting.

"Debunking" a point that was never made?

I said that the principle of progressive taxation has been a part of American tradition since at least that Act in 1861. (There may well have been other progressive taxes at the state level earlier, but I'm not going to bother looking it up).

[Hydrae]

It's "Progressive Taxation." It's been in effect in America since at least 1861:

"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."

Of course, maybe Lincoln was an un-American pinko in your eyes.

http://www.treas.gov/education/fact-sheets/taxes/ustax.shtml

I took this to be discussing the income tax that you bolded, not as progressive taxation.

And it was declared unConstitutional by the SC too. So it wasn't in effect since then. Too bad the courts abandoned strict construction in the modern era...to change our govt from what it was to what some wanted it to be. Note it was a mercantilist Republican that passed this one....and later it would be Rs again in the 20th century to impose another one....only this time they used the amendment process at least. But you can't say it was in effect since 1861.

From this response I believed that was what Buc thought as well.


This kind of nitpicking crap is why I don't post in this forum as much as I might. There are interesting discussions and I learn a lot and get motivated to learn other things on my own from this board. But there are a lot of times I just shake head at how petty some of the discussions get.

There was an income tax passed in 1861. In 1895 it was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. There was then an amendment to the constitution to state that an income tax can be levied without regard to the enumeration as required in the original document. Seems pretty straight forward to me.

We can have discussion all day long about this series of events and the good, bad, right or wrong about those things. I am sure I would very much enjoy that as it is one of the areas that I think has caused this country to wind up in the position it is in today. But if it is a discussion of whether someone had a mispelling or missed a date by a year then it is completely counterproductive.

That said, enjoy the discussion. I will enjoy reading most of the posts.

[orange]

Originally Posted by orange
It's "Progressive Taxation." It's been in effect in America since at least 1861:

"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."

Of course, maybe Lincoln was an un-American pinko in your eyes.

http://www.treas.gov/education/fact-...es/ustax.shtml

I make a clear statement about "Progressive Taxation" and then give an example of "Progressive Taxation" and somehow that equals a claim about income tax? I think some of you need to get out of this forum for a few days. Reading all the diatribes and invective has damaged your reading comprehension.

[orange]

This kind of nitpicking crap is why I don't post in this forum as much as I might. There are interesting discussions and I learn a lot and get motivated to learn other things on my own from this board. But there are a lot of times I just shake head at how petty some of the discussions get.

Agree wholeheartedly.

There was an income tax passed in 1861. In 1895 it was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. There was then an amendment to the constitution to state that an income tax can be levied without regard to the enumeration as required in the original document. Seems pretty straight forward to me.


Alas, it's not that straight forward. Let me clear up a couple things.


The income tax passed in 1861 was NOT declared unconstitutional.

There was a subsequent income tax passed in 1894. That bill included tax on income from property (dividends and the like). It was that portion of the bill that was declared unconstitutional.

That Supreme Court decision specifically stated that the 1861 tax WAS constitutional, and that the tax on salaries and wages in the 1894 bill were likewise constitutional as well.

The reason the tax on income from property in that 1894 law was unconstitutional was because it wasn't apportioned among the states on the basis of their population. It had nothing to do with it being Progressive (which means taxing people with higher incomes at a higher rate).

The Supreme Court in an act of heavy-handed arrogance common in the robber-baron era threw out the whole 1894 bill including the parts that it ruled constitutional.

The whole thing was rendered moot by the 16th Amendment which expressly grants Congress the power to enact taxes just like the ones the Pollack decision tossed.


In summary, the Supreme Court has NEVER* ruled income tax unconstitutional.


*unless someone's got some other decision they want to offer. Any takers?

[Hydrae]

Agree wholeheartedly.



Alas, it's not that straight forward. Let me clear up a couple things.


The income tax passed in 1861 was NOT declared unconstitutional.

There was a subsequent income tax passed in 1894. That bill included tax on income from property (dividends and the like). It was that portion of the bill that was declared unconstitutional.

That Supreme Court decision specifically stated that the 1861 tax WAS constitutional, and that the tax on salaries and wages in the 1894 bill were likewise constitutional as well.

The reason the tax on income from property in that 1894 law was unconstitutional was because it wasn't apportioned among the states on the basis of their population. It had nothing to do with it being Progressive (which means taxing people with higher incomes at a higher rate).

The Supreme Court in an act of heavy-handed arrogance common in the robber-baron era threw out the whole 1894 bill including the parts that it ruled constitutional.

The whole thing was rendered moot by the 16th Amendment which expressly grants Congress the power to enact taxes just like the ones the Pollack decision tossed.


In summary, the Supreme Court has NEVER* ruled income tax unconstitutional.


*unless someone's got some other decision they want to offer. Any takers?


I am going to have to do some thinking and researching on this a bit. So what you are saying is that the purpose of the 16th amendment really was so they could include taxes on revenues derived from property (rents and the like I guess). This would also mean that at no time was a tax on income considered a direct taxation? The only way I can see that is if you consider an income to be a voluntary thing, if you don't want to pay it don't have an income.

Like I said, this will take some to get my mind around this view. I have always thought a tax on income goes against the entire reason for the apportionment and tying it to our level of representation (before the 16th I'm talking about of course).

[orange]

I am going to have to do some thinking and researching on this a bit. So what you are saying is that the purpose of the 16th amendment really was so they could include taxes on revenues derived from property (rents and the like I guess). This would also mean that at no time was a tax on income considered a direct taxation? The only way I can see that is if you consider an income to be a voluntary thing, if you don't want to pay it don't have an income.

Like I said, this will take some to get my mind around this view. I have always thought a tax on income goes against the entire reason for the apportionment and tying it to our level of representation (before the 16th I'm talking about of course).


I've found this a good source for the original docs (it's the Supreme Court's own site):

http://supreme.justia.com/index.html

It's heavy reading, though, but it will give you ideas and terms you can google to get easier interpretations.

[J Diddy]

I don't need to know you. All I need to know is that you desire what people have without having to earn it for yourself. Looters mentality.

I sure would like to point out that I said nothing of the sort. Please oh wise one, show me the post where I proclaimed I wanted anything. I said and I quote "I would trade the extra taxes for the base salary of 150,000"

From this statement you assumed that my wife and I can't handle money, we are incapable of work and I have a looters mentality. You sir, are a delusional man. I hope you can get it worked out.

[Mr. Flopnuts]

The people that don't care or are happy about this are the one's that aren't paying.

Easy to do when you're not the one footing the bill.

Kind of like non smokers? It's pretty funny seeing some of the reactions when the shoe is on the other foot.

[Mr. Flopnuts]

You and your wife couldn't manage the money and the job responsibility. You'd be out of a job in no time, and losing the house.

Keep your $800 bucks. That's what you can handle.

Huh. I never knew you were an aspiring elitist.

[J Diddy]

Huh. I never knew you were an aspiring elitist.


No hes an elite ass.

[kc hopeful]

"There is no disagreement that we
need action by our government,
a recovery plan that will help to
jumpstart the economy."
Obama 1/9/09

With all due respect
Mr.President,that is not true.

Not withstanding reports that all economists are now Keynesians and that we all support a big increase in the burden of government, we the undersigned do not believe that more government spending is a way to improve economic performance.
More government spending by Hoover and Roosevelt did not pull the United States economy out of the Great Depression in the 1930s. More government spending did not solve Japan’s “lost decade” in the 1990s. As such, it is a triumph of hope over experience to believe that more government spending will help the U.S. today. To improve the economy, policymakers should
focus on reforms that remove impediments to work, saving, investment and production. Lower tax rates and a reduction in the burden of government are the best ways of using fiscal policy to boost growth.



http://www.cato.org/special/stimulus09/cato_stimulus.pdf

[petegz28]

I would gladly trade a salary of 150000 annually combined for my wife and I and pay higher taxes on it then just getting 800 extra. Anyone want to swap?

This!

My grandfather used to always tell me...."Pete, you can be in the position to pay higher taxes or you can be in the position not too. But it is a lot more fun to be in the position to pay higher taxes"

[Taco John]

Huh. I never knew you were an aspiring elitist.

If believing that I should be allowed to keep what I earn is considered being an aspiring elitist, then count me in.

[Taco John]

I sure would like to point out that I said nothing of the sort. Please oh wise one, show me the post where I proclaimed I wanted anything. I said and I quote "I would trade the extra taxes for the base salary of 150,000"

From this statement you assumed that my wife and I can't handle money, we are incapable of work and I have a looters mentality. You sir, are a delusional man. I hope you can get it worked out.

This quote:

I would gladly trade a salary of 150000 annually combined for my wife and I and pay higher taxes on it then just getting 800 extra. Anyone want to swap?

This, sir, is a looters mentality. You want to trade someone with something of value (namely an income) for something of relatively little value - namely, the $800 dollars that the government is stealing from them to give to you. Your attitude is, "hey, if you have $150,000 a year, you can afford to pay me that $800 I didn't earn." That's a looters mentality.

You said that you wanted to "trade straight across." The reason that you want to trade straight across is because you are incapable of making $150,000 a year. If you were capable of making $150,000 a year, You'd be making it, no? If you were making that kind of money, you might come to the realization that earning that kind of money comes with a lot more responsibility than someone who is making $40,000 per year. With that responsibility comes headaches and a whole host of problems that you might have never dreamed of.

Striving to earn $150,000 in a two income family comes with it's fair share of sacrifices that a couple has to make in order to make it happen. To believe that it's ok and ethical to penalize these types of producers just for the fact that they are making the money (and you're not) is a looters mentality. It's stealing. To flippantly say "oh, I'll trade them the salary for my free $800" without acknowledging the sacrifice that goes into making that kind of money reveals your quality. It's like wearing a shirt with big block letters on the front that say "LOOTER."

[Rain Man]

Free rep to anyone who can find something that'll help me that doesn't involve me spending far more than the benefit.

[J Diddy]

This quote:



This, sir, is a looters mentality. You want to trade someone with something of value (namely an income) for something of relatively little value - namely, the $800 dollars that the government is stealing from them to give to you. Your attitude is, "hey, if you have $150,000 a year, you can afford to pay me that $800 I didn't earn." That's a looters mentality.

You said that you wanted to "trade straight across." The reason that you want to trade straight across is because you are incapable of making $150,000 a year. If you were capable of making $150,000 a year, You'd be making it, no? If you were making that kind of money, you might come to the realization that earning that kind of money comes with a lot more responsibility than someone who is making $40,000 per year. With that responsibility comes headaches and a whole host of problems that you might have never dreamed of.

Striving to earn $150,000 in a two income family comes with it's fair share of sacrifices that a couple has to make in order to make it happen. To believe that it's ok and ethical to penalize these types of producers just for the fact that they are making the money (and you're not) is a looters mentality. It's stealing. To flippantly say "oh, I'll trade them the salary for my free $800" without acknowledging the sacrifice that goes into making that kind of money reveals your quality. It's like wearing a shirt with big block letters on the front that say "LOOTER."
Yep that's what I said. How you got Looter out of it shows how you arrive at your conclusions when it's convenient for your argument.

[Taco John]

Yep that's what I said. How you got Looter out of it shows how you arrive at your conclusions when it's convenient for your argument.


We already established that's what you said. I had quoted you.

[J Diddy]

We already established that's what you said. I had quoted you.

Awesome, now please tell me how I got to be a looter.

[Taco John]

Awesome, now please tell me how I got to be a looter.


Read slowly (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showpost.php?p=5517302&postcount=90)

[J Diddy]

Read slowly (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showpost.php?p=5517302&postcount=90)

Oh I get it, because I the govt is giving me tax breaks that I didn't pay some one to obtain (i.e. lobbyists), and the govt is charging folks who make a large some of money and get tremendous tax write offs I'm a looter. Check.

[Taco John]

Oh I get it, because I the govt is giving me tax breaks that I didn't pay some one to obtain (i.e. lobbyists), and the govt is charging folks who make a large some of money and get tremendous tax write offs I'm a looter. Check.

Did you not gladly justify increasing the taxes of those couples earning $150k per year by saying the following?

I would gladly trade a salary of 150000 annually combined for my wife and I and pay higher taxes on it then just getting 800 extra. Anyone want to swap?

If you did indeed say that (which the record here indicates that quote came from you) I'm puzzled by your confusion.

[J Diddy]

Did you not gladly justify increasing the taxes of those couples earning $150k per year by saying the following?



If you did indeed say that (which the record here indicates that quote came from you) I'm puzzled by your confusion.

I most certainly did, however your confusion is puzzling. Are you telling me that you would rather have the $800 over the $150000 annual salary?

[Velvet_Jones]

Wow! I didn't realize every 20th person made 100+ grand. That's news right there.

This would be funny if you were serious. If you are serious then you need get out more - understand that that is not that much money.

[J Diddy]

This would be funny if you were serious. If you are serious then you need get out more - understand that that is not that much money.

$100000 a year isn't that much money?

[Velvet_Jones]

"Real median household income in the United States climbed 1.3 percent between 2006 and 2007, reaching $50,233, according to a report released today by the U.S. Census Bureau. This is the third annual increase in real median household income."

http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/income_wealth/012528.html

If your household makes almost three times more than the median, I'm supposed to feel sorry or outrage for you? Why? You can't trade in last years model for this year's?

You need a math lesson Jenson71. Maybe thats why you make less than the median. He said 5%. Get your high school elementary math book out and do yourself some learnin'.

[Taco John]

I most certainly did, however your confusion is puzzling. Are you telling me that you would rather have the $800 over the $150000 annual salary?


Which of those options have I earned? That's the one I want.

[Velvet_Jones]

Though I would love to be making $150k as a household, I would hardly call it well off in this day and age.

If you don't live above your means though, 150k should be more than enough.

This is whats stupid - If you owe nothing - do the right thing, have grown kids, that $150k is more like $70-$75k when you figure federal income/ capital gains and state taxes. People that owe a bunching of money on a house do not know what they are getting ready to deal with when they pay it off.

It's BS.

[Velvet_Jones]

$100000 a year isn't that much money?

No it is not, if you have no liabilities - you get raped.

[Taco John]

$100000 a year isn't that much money?

That's the 28% tax bracket. So it's really $72,000. Add health care for three, and the take home is closer to $60,000. Add a $2000/month mortgage, and you've got $36,000. With a house/family that size, you're going to have on average about $1500 a month in random bills, which reduces that nut to $18000. Childcare for one kid in a quality establishment is going to run about $800 a month for one kid, taking about $10,000 off of that nut, leaving you with $8000. Gas, groceries, clothing, etc. will pretty much wipe the rest of that out, leaving very little for the family to bank into savings.

I wouldn't call it "rich." It looks a lot like living paycheck to paycheck, don't you think?

[Bootlegged]

Work hard, finish school, pay for school, get job, more long hours -hard work, move up the ladder or start own company, make a decent living......then watch Obama take it away to help the gangsta on the corner who has no interest in work or school. Awesome plan. Change.

[vailpass]

The things I'm getting from the lewrockwell capitalists in this thread are that:

1. We shouldn't think about other people, because that's the socialist agenda
2. When Adam Smith says something contrary to popular ideas of capitalism, it's important to discredit him by pointing to the fabulous untried improvements made in someone's imagination.

How much $ did you earn in 2008?How much do you expect to earn in 2009?

[Brock]

How much $ did you earn in 2008?How much do you expect to earn in 2009?

I too would be interested in knowing what his allowance is.

[Garcia Bronco]

I basically turned down my raise this year to stay below this 75 K line.

[Garcia Bronco]

Awesome, now please tell me how I got to be a looter.

Dude, you got owned.

[Simplex3]

No it is not, if you have no liabilities - you get raped.

The feds desperately need you to be in debt up to your eyeballs.

[Simplex3]

How much $ did you earn in 2008?How much do you expect to earn in 2009?

He's already admitted in another thread he makes so little that he gets all of his taxes back.

[CoMoChief]

This is the USof O now.

USSA Untied Socialist States of America

fyp

[Chief Faithful]

I most certainly did, however your confusion is puzzling. Are you telling me that you would rather have the $800 over the $150000 annual salary?

You just justified taking money you did not earn from someone who did. I think Taco has given that mentality an accurate label.

So typical of government they start by vilifying wealth then the middle class gets it in the end. The result the poor are still poor and the politicians power grows.

[J Diddy]

Dude, you got owned.


According to Taco's premise I was already owned by the man. The man that paves the streets, provides for education and provides security.

Now as far as that ownage I disagree. It's a simple element of math. I would trade more money for less money any day of the week. Now his typical response was great. It inspired me!!! "what I earned"---great quote. Except he showed the length of devotion to everyone getting what they earned when he posted about a great place to illegally download movies in the media forum. So basically a looters mentality only exists when it affects his income.

[J Diddy]

You just justified taking money you did not earn from someone who did. I think Taco has given that mentality an accurate label.

So typical of government they start by vilifying wealth then the middle class gets it in the end. The result the poor are still poor and the politicians power grows.


I didn't justify anything. I simply said I would trade less money for more money any day of the week. Who wouldn't? That's not justification that's math.

[Joe Seahawk]

This woman was right! who knew?

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/P36x8rTb3jI&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en&feature=player_embedded&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/P36x8rTb3jI&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en&feature=player_embedded&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

[Velvet_Jones]

I've found this a good source for the original docs (it's the Supreme Court's own site):

http://supreme.justia.com/index.html

It's heavy reading, though, but it will give you ideas and terms you can google to get easier interpretations.

'Cause its on the internet means its true. Good luck with that Orange. You need to read the Federalist Papers. Then you can shut up because your argument will be more funny than scary.

[orange]

'Cause its on the internet means its true. Good luck with that Orange. You need to read the Federalist Papers. Then you can shut up because your argument will be more funny than scary.

I believe you've ever read the Federalist Papers almost as much as I believe income tax is unconstitutional (i.e. not at all).

However, in the interest of letting you make a fool of yourself, please enlighten us on what the Federalist Papers said about limiting the taxation powers of the Federal govt.

Don't forget to quote the sources directly.