Author Topic: San Diego Union Trib: 'WH Compounds IRS Abuse of Power'  (Read 1369 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline flowers

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 18,680
San Diego Union Trib: 'WH Compounds IRS Abuse of Power'
« on: December 10, 2013, 02:46:59 PM »
http://www.breitbart.com/InstaBlog/2013/12/10/San-Diego-Union-Trib-WH-Compounds-IRS-Abuse-of-Power

Quote
In response to POTUS Subverted DOJ Investigation During Chris Matthews Interview :

The San Diego Union Tribune editorial board is one of the few in the country willing to hold Obama responsible for the damage he's doing to the country. In fact, in 2012, they rated Obama the worst POTUS in history.

In an oped, Monday, they slammed the Obama administration for their duplicity in the IRS scandal, noting that after admitting in May that the IRS's targeting practices were problematic,  Obama promised a thorough investigation.

As multiple conservative news outlets (including this one) have pointed out, no investigation of the IRS scandal by the Obama administration can be discerned by anyone.

     Last month, an attorney working for 41 of the targeted nonprofit groups said no one at any of the groups had ever been interviewed by federal investigators.

    Last week, the Justice Department and the FBI refused requests from the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee to provide information on its investigation. FBI officials also canceled a previously scheduled meeting with committee members. And the president — who in May said people were “properly concerned” with the IRS’ actions — used an MSNBC interview to whitewash the agency.

The San Diego Union Tribune points out that the original abuse of power has been compounded with another abuse of power: "promising to get to the bottom of a scandal and then doing nothing." They call the Regime's behavior "shameless and shameful", but "wholly predictable."

Meanwhile, the shameful and predictable IRS targeting abuses continue -  ObamaCare whistleblower, C. Steven Tucker has more details about his audit and his visit last Friday with the Treasury IG in Chicago, in an interview with Arlen Williams at The American Thinker.

    Then Treasury Inspector General Williams arrived with an associate. He showed me his business card and his badge and then sat down to begin his inquisition of sorts during which he and his associate took copious notes.

    To my surprise his questions were not designed to find out why I was sent the letters of demand but more to find out more about me and even more surprisingly my new friend Bill Elliott.

    He asked for Bill Elliott's phone number twice. I did not give him Mr. Elliott's phone number. He then asked for a timeline of events. He asked 'How did you first meet Bill? What law did you use to help him get his policy restored? What television program did he appear on?' etc. He then asked for my full name and my social security number since the IRS letters of demand were sent to my corporation and not to my personal name.

    And, then at the end of his line of questioning he made sure to tell me that 'you need to resolve these issues with the IRS, if not, as you may be aware, you may be visited again by other IRS representatives in your home and we do reserve the right to garnish your wages and lien your assets.' Mr. Sneckenberg and I then wished them a Happy Holiday and showed them both the door.

Read the full interview, here.


Offline Rapunzel

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 71,719
Re: San Diego Union Trib: 'WH Compounds IRS Abuse of Power'
« Reply #1 on: December 10, 2013, 02:58:13 PM »
Wow.. the full article at American Thinker is scary as hell............ I imagine Oceander will find it interesting...........

and where in the hell is the ISSA investigation in this?????????  at this point I hold the GOP as responsible as anyone as they have totally dropped the ball.
“The time is now near at hand which must probably determine, whether Americans are to be, Freemen, or Slaves.” G Washington July 2, 1776

Offline Relic

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 4,967
Re: San Diego Union Trib: 'WH Compounds IRS Abuse of Power'
« Reply #2 on: December 10, 2013, 03:16:31 PM »
Wow.. the full article at American Thinker is scary as hell............ I imagine Oceander will find it interesting...........

and where in the hell is the ISSA investigation in this?????????  at this point I hold the GOP as responsible as anyone as they have totally dropped the ball.

Get some cameras, Issa will show up, might even setup an inquiry.

Online Bigun

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 20,299
  • The income tax: Root of all evil!
    • The FairTax Plan
Re: San Diego Union Trib: 'WH Compounds IRS Abuse of Power'
« Reply #3 on: December 10, 2013, 03:22:41 PM »
We will never again be a truly free people for so long as we continue to abide the Marxist Income Tax and the IRS!

http://fairtax.org

Online Bigun

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 20,299
  • The income tax: Root of all evil!
    • The FairTax Plan
Re: San Diego Union Trib: 'WH Compounds IRS Abuse of Power'
« Reply #4 on: December 10, 2013, 03:25:42 PM »
“The greatest tool Communism has in our toolbox is the progressive income tax.”-- Karl Marx

Online Oceander

  • Technical
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 44,071
  • #ToldYouSo
Re: San Diego Union Trib: 'WH Compounds IRS Abuse of Power'
« Reply #5 on: December 10, 2013, 08:03:18 PM »
The income tax is not "marxist" any more than long hair being "girl's hair."  In fact, taxes on income have a long and storied history that has nothing to do with marxism; they were typically imposed under the label of excise taxes on the practice of certain professions or trades, and were also often labeled "privilege taxes" because they were imposed on the "privilege" of being permitted to carry on a profession or trade that was licensed or regulated by the government.  Wikipedia has a short description of privilege taxes.  For example, the corporate income tax was upheld by the Supreme Court (the same court that had found the personal income tax to be unconstitutional) on the ground that it was an (indirect) tax on the privilege of doing business in the corporate form.

In point of fact, an income tax eo nomine - with progressive rates no less - was imposed in Britain in 1799 by William Pitt the Younger.  The UK Revenue & Customs agency even has a brief history of it here (this is the UK gov't's archived version): http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/history/taxhis1.htm

Since Marx wasn't born until May 5th, 1818, it necessarily follows that, if anything, he copied the income tax from pre-marxist English law; it certainly didn't happen the other way 'round.  I would note that Pitt's income tax did not simply spring into existence with out any connection to earlier English legal and cultural history, so it necessarily follows that the same sources that gave rise to Pitt's income tax were imported into US law at the ratification of the Constitution, when English common law as it then stood was taken up as source-law for the American states.

To put it bluntly:  Marx was a johnny-come-lately to the income tax party and he brought very little that was innovative or original to that party.
« Last Edit: December 10, 2013, 08:18:05 PM by Oceander »

Online Bigun

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 20,299
  • The income tax: Root of all evil!
    • The FairTax Plan
Re: San Diego Union Trib: 'WH Compounds IRS Abuse of Power'
« Reply #6 on: December 10, 2013, 08:40:10 PM »
The income tax is not "marxist" any more than long hair being "girl's hair."  In fact, taxes on income have a long and storied history that has nothing to do with marxism; they were typically imposed under the label of excise taxes on the practice of certain professions or trades, and were also often labeled "privilege taxes" because they were imposed on the "privilege" of being permitted to carry on a profession or trade that was licensed or regulated by the government.  Wikipedia has a short description of privilege taxes.  For example, the corporate income tax was upheld by the Supreme Court (the same court that had found the personal income tax to be unconstitutional) on the ground that it was an (indirect) tax on the privilege of doing business in the corporate form.

In point of fact, an income tax eo nomine - with progressive rates no less - was imposed in Britain in 1799 by William Pitt the Younger.  The UK Revenue & Customs agency even has a brief history of it here (this is the UK gov't's archived version): http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/history/taxhis1.htm

Since Marx wasn't born until May 5th, 1818, it necessarily follows that, if anything, he copied the income tax from pre-marxist English law; it certainly didn't happen the other way 'round.  I would note that Pitt's income tax did not simply spring into existence with out any connection to earlier English legal and cultural history, so it necessarily follows that the same sources that gave rise to Pitt's income tax were imported into US law at the ratification of the Constitution, when English common law as it then stood was taken up as source-law for the American states.

To put it bluntly:  Marx was a johnny-come-lately to the income tax party and he brought very little that was innovative or original to that party.


Councilor you know very well that very little of what Marx and Engels endorsed in their little Manifesto was original but most everyone agrees that their endorsement of it DOES make it Marxist!

We've, you and I, have been over this ground before. I'll stand by what I said then.

http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,119297.msg483694.html#msg483694



« Last Edit: December 10, 2013, 08:46:35 PM by Bigun »

Online Oceander

  • Technical
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 44,071
  • #ToldYouSo
Re: San Diego Union Trib: 'WH Compounds IRS Abuse of Power'
« Reply #7 on: December 10, 2013, 08:43:32 PM »
Councilor you know very well that very little of what Marx and Engels endorsed in their little Manifesto was original but most everyone agrees that their endorsement of it DOES make it Marxist!

We've, you and I, have been over this ground before. I'll stand by what I said then.

Quote

    The income tax - or any other tax for that matter - is not "marxist"; it's simply a tax, one amongst many available to a sovereign.



So YOU say! I beg to differ given the fact that Marx and Engles specifically called for "a heavy progressive income tax" in their Manifesto
of the Communist Party I say that makes the income tax a decidedly Marxist tax!

Quoting from the section of that document in which they instruct fellow travelers on how they are to take over developed countries (second section Entitled PROLETARIANS AND COMMUNISTS:

..."The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralize all instruments of production in the hands of the state, i.e., of the proletariat organized as the ruling class; and to increase the total productive forces as rapidly as possible.

Of course, in the beginning, this cannot be effected except by means of despotic inroads on the rights of property, and on the conditions of bourgeois production; by means of measures, therefore, which appear economically insufficient and untenable, but which, in the course of the movement, outstrip themselves, necessitate further inroads upon the old social order, and are unavoidable as a means of entirely revolutionizing the mode of production.

These measures will, of course, be different in different countries.

Nevertheless, in most advanced countries, the following will be pretty generally applicable.

1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.

2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.

4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.

5. Centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.

6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state.

7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.

8. Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.

9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.

10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc.

When, in the course of development, class distinctions have disappeared, and all production has been concentrated in the hands of a vast association of the whole nation, the public power will lose its political character. Political power, properly so called, is merely the organized power of one class for oppressing another. If the proletariat during its contest with the bourgeoisie is compelled, by the force of circumstances, to organize itself as a class; if, by means of a revolution, it makes itself the ruling class, and, as such, sweeps away by force the old conditions of production, then it will, along with these conditions, have swept away the conditions for the existence of class antagonisms and of classes generally, and will thereby have abolished its own supremacy as a class.

In place of the old bourgeois society, with its classes and class antagonisms, we shall have an association in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all. "

http://www.anu.edu.au/polsci/marx/classics/manifesto.html

You are right about one thing though! There have been numerous instances of some form of income taxation throughout history and none of them, not a one, ended well for the people involved.



Sorry my friend.  The English invented and imposed the income tax - a graduated, progressive income tax no less - before Marx was even a glimmer in his parents' eyes.

The income tax is an English creation, not a marxist invention.  History makes that an undisputable fact.

Online Bigun

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 20,299
  • The income tax: Root of all evil!
    • The FairTax Plan
Re: San Diego Union Trib: 'WH Compounds IRS Abuse of Power'
« Reply #8 on: December 10, 2013, 08:48:48 PM »
Sorry my friend.  The English invented and imposed the income tax - a graduated, progressive income tax no less - before Marx was even a glimmer in his parents' eyes.

The income tax is an English creation, not a marxist invention.  History makes that an undisputable fact.


And you are wrong about that as well!

Forms of income taxation go as far back as ancient Egypt!

If you, or anyone else for that matter, is truly interested in the subject I highly recommend a copy of Charles Adams book For Good and Evil: The Impact of Taxes on the Course of Civilization



 
« Last Edit: December 10, 2013, 08:54:41 PM by Bigun »

Online Oceander

  • Technical
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 44,071
  • #ToldYouSo
Re: San Diego Union Trib: 'WH Compounds IRS Abuse of Power'
« Reply #9 on: December 10, 2013, 08:55:04 PM »
And you are wrong about that as well!

Forms of income taxation go as far back as ancient Egypt!

If you wish to split hairs, then I'll add the rhetorical flourish that "modern" income taxation - certainly in the English common law countries, which necessarily includes the United States - was the creation of the English.

That being said, you have just undermined and disproved your own thesis.  If even the ancient Egyptians taxed income, then there is simply no logical or rational way the income tax can be labelled as Marxian.

Thank you for proving my point.

Online Bigun

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 20,299
  • The income tax: Root of all evil!
    • The FairTax Plan
Re: San Diego Union Trib: 'WH Compounds IRS Abuse of Power'
« Reply #10 on: December 10, 2013, 08:58:18 PM »
If you wish to split hairs, then I'll add the rhetorical flourish that "modern" income taxation - certainly in the English common law countries, which necessarily includes the United States - was the creation of the English.

That being said, you have just undermined and disproved your own thesis.  If even the ancient Egyptians taxed income, then there is simply no logical or rational way the income tax can be labelled as Marxian.

Thank you for proving my point.

What do YOU think makes ANYTHING "Marxist"?  Inquiring minds want to know!

Online Oceander

  • Technical
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 44,071
  • #ToldYouSo
Re: San Diego Union Trib: 'WH Compounds IRS Abuse of Power'
« Reply #11 on: December 10, 2013, 09:03:15 PM »
What do YOU think makes ANYTHING "Marxist"?  Inquiring minds want to know!

Since you're the proponent of the theory that the income tax is Marxist, the onus is on you to provide us with an explanation for what makes something Marxist.  In particular, since - as you very nicely pointed out - the income tax has a long, long, long history, 99% of which has nothing to do with Marx or Marxism, you have the burden of proving that the income tax is Marxist and that the premise to be drawn from history, namely that the income tax is simply a tool, a tax that has been resorted to by governments across the entire political spectrum, is false.

So, let's not put the cart before the horse.  I'm standing on history - including the history that you've provided us with - and it's your job to prove that this history is bunk.

Online Bigun

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 20,299
  • The income tax: Root of all evil!
    • The FairTax Plan
Re: San Diego Union Trib: 'WH Compounds IRS Abuse of Power'
« Reply #12 on: December 10, 2013, 09:08:45 PM »
Since you're the proponent of the theory that the income tax is Marxist, the onus is on you to provide us with an explanation for what makes something Marxist.  In particular, since - as you very nicely pointed out - the income tax has a long, long, long history, 99% of which has nothing to do with Marx or Marxism, you have the burden of proving that the income tax is Marxist and that the premise to be drawn from history, namely that the income tax is simply a tool, a tax that has been resorted to by governments across the entire political spectrum, is false.

So, let's not put the cart before the horse.  I'm standing on history - including the history that you've provided us with - and it's your job to prove that this history is bunk.

I have already, several times in fact, said that anything endorsed by Marx and Engels in their Manifesto makes that thing a Marxist ideal and I do believe that most people agree with me on that point!


Offline Chieftain

  • AMF, YOYO
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 9,633
  • Your what hurts??
Re: San Diego Union Trib: 'WH Compounds IRS Abuse of Power'
« Reply #13 on: December 10, 2013, 09:28:09 PM »

Online Oceander

  • Technical
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 44,071
  • #ToldYouSo
Re: San Diego Union Trib: 'WH Compounds IRS Abuse of Power'
« Reply #14 on: December 10, 2013, 09:40:12 PM »
I have already, several times in fact, said that anything endorsed by Marx and Engels in their Manifesto makes that thing a Marxist ideal and I do believe that most people agree with me on that point!



Ahh.  But that simply invites intellectual incoherence.  William Pitt and the English endorsed the income tax, therefore it was an "independent Whig" ideal, or perhaps a "new Tory" ideal (Pitt referred to himself as the former, but was referred to by others as the latter).  The income tax was also endorsed in the US during the Civil War (to name at least one time it was endorsed), which, since it was by the North, would make it a Republican ideal (President Lincoln being a Republican and all).  It was also heartily endorsed by the Democrat party, which would make it a Democrat ideal.  In fact, since it was also adopted, hence endorsed, by the ancient Egyptians, then it is also necessarily an ancient Egyptian ideal.

In other words, under your own reasoning, the income tax is necessarily an ideal for just about every political flavor there's been in this world, which makes it intellectually incoherent, and dishonest, to label it as solely a Marxist ideal and to then argue that it should be abolished because it was a Marxist ideal.  However, since it wasn't just a Marxist ideal, but also an ancient Egyptian ideal, your argument for its abolition necessarily fails because you've provided no basis for the premise that ancient Egyptian ideals are as offensive as are Marxist ideals.

Your reasoning can be reduced, more or less, to a syllogism like so:

(1) Marxist ideals should be abolished,
(2) the income tax was a Marxist ideal,
(3) therefore, the income tax should be abolished.

That reasoning is flawed for the simple reason that it only stands if the income tax was solely a Marxist ideal - that is, if it was not an ideal of any other political view - and since, as you have been so kind to point out, it was also an ancient Egyptian ideal, the syllogism fails because premise (2) is false in the sense that it is not exclusive.

Here is a syllogism, with an extra premise, that demonstrates the fallacy:

(1) Marxist ideals should be abolished,
(2) Republican ideals should be adopted,
(3) the income tax is a Marxist ideal (based on the sources you've cited),
(4) the income tax is a Republican ideal (based on the fact that Republicans have endorsed the income tax),
(5) therefore, the income tax should be abolished and adopted.

If an argument leads to the conclusion P and not-P, then the argument is false.  Your argument - once the unstated premises are fleshed out - leads to precisely that sort of conclusion and is therefore similarly false.
« Last Edit: December 10, 2013, 09:41:04 PM by Oceander »

Offline Rapunzel

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 71,719
Re: San Diego Union Trib: 'WH Compounds IRS Abuse of Power'
« Reply #15 on: December 10, 2013, 09:50:42 PM »
and our founders coming from heavily-taxed England had this to say about taxes:


“By today’s standards King George III was a very mild tyrant indeed. He taxed his American colonists at a rate of only pennies per annum. His actual impact on their personal lives was trivial. He had arbitrary power over them in law and in principle but in fact it was seldom exercised. If you compare his rule with that of today’s U.S. Government you have to wonder why we celebrate our independence..”
― Joseph Sobran

“The power to tax is the power to destroy.”
― John Marshall

“Certainty? In this world nothing is certain but death and taxes.”
― Benjamin Franklin

“To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.”
― Thomas Jefferson


“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the people discover they can vote themselves largess out of the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the canidate promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that democracy always collapses over a loose fiscal policy--to be followed by a dictatorship.”
― Alexander Fraser Tytler


“An unlimited power to tax involves, necessarily, a power to destroy; because there is a limit beyond which no institution and no property can bear taxation.”
― John Marshall


“The art of taxation consists of plucking the goose so as to obtain the most feathers with the least hissing.”
― Jean-Baptiste Colbert


“The time is now near at hand which must probably determine, whether Americans are to be, Freemen, or Slaves.” G Washington July 2, 1776

Offline Rapunzel

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 71,719
Re: San Diego Union Trib: 'WH Compounds IRS Abuse of Power'
« Reply #16 on: December 10, 2013, 09:57:02 PM »
+++++++++++++++++++++++++

http://beforeitsnews.com/tea-party/2013/03/the-founding-fathers-views-on-taxation-2483688.html

During the framing of the Constitution, the founding fathers quarreled over many issues. The issue of taxation was no different. The two main schools of thought, in regards to taxation, resided between Federalists and anti-Federalist parties. Federalists pushed for national authority over the power to tax, in addition to state proposals. Anti-Federalists objected to federal authority to tax, feeling the power would be illiberally abused.[1] There were, however, issues in which the majority of the founding fathers agreed upon. Contrary to today’s popular beliefs, many of the founding fathers believed the poor should be taxed at a higher rate, in an attempt to motivate them to work thus propelling them out of their poverty.  Also conflicting with modern beliefs, they felt those who worked should be taxed less heavily so as to remunerate them for their endeavors: “To take from one, because it is thought that his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association.”[2] These views are found in the founding fathers private papers as well as delineated throughout the Constitution.

As previously mentioned, the amount of power in which the Federal Government should be granted regarding taxes, was a major altercation amid Federalist and anti-Federalist parties. To further explain these viewpoints, however, one must first understand the difference between external and internal taxation.  An external tax was a duty on any item which was being shipped to a specific colony or state. The tax would be originally paid by the shipper, but then imposed unto the item itself. This is known in present day terms as a tariff. An internal tax, however, was a tax which was imposed directly upon an item, such as a sales tax. The anti-Federalists made a clear distinction between these two types of taxes, which they argued the Federalists grouped into one category. Richard Henry Lee, a renowned anti-Federalist, argued that external taxes were safe because their abuses were minimal and bounded. In regards to internal taxation, he felt the national government would gradually shift tax policy in order to favor their personal prosperity.[3] He explained: “…the power would be improperly lodged in congress, and that it might be abused by imprudent and designing men.”  Lee also questioned the authority of those in power, and made arguments for the power to be left with the people.  “Why give the power to the few, who, when possessed of it, may have address enough to prevent the increase of representation? Why not keep the power, and, when necessary, amend the constitution”[4]

The Federalists tried the best they could to compromise on the issues being voiced at the time. Alexander Hamilton directly addressed the issue in the New York Packet writing:

“There is a simple point of view in which this [tax dispute] may be placed that must be altogether satisfactory. The national legislature can make use of the system of each state within that state. The method of laying and collecting taxes in each State can, in all its parts, be adopted and employed by the federal government.”[5]

Hamilton felt the power should reside in the Federal Government first, and then distributed throughout each state. Lee on the other hand, believed the power should reside in the state first, and maintained by the government. The preeminent argument of the Federalists remained in the belief that one could have a ‘rule of the people’ through representation of the government. Alexander Hamilton argued: “whether the representation of the people be more or less numerous, it will consist almost entirely of proprietors of land, of merchants, and of members of the learned professions, who will truly represent all those different interests and views.”  While authority cannot reside directly in the hands of each individual, he believed that within a state, but both the state and the individual are indirectly granted power by means of representation.

           
Quote
In regards to the amount which one should be taxed, Federalists, those in between, and even some anti-Federalists all thought the like. If those who were out of work are taxed a low amount, they would feel only a small need to try and get a job. If the taxes were higher, ample enough to cause burdensome upon the individual, they would need to find work in order to survive. This was the view of Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, George Washington, John Adams, and Benjamin Franklin alike.  While this seems an extreme position to take, Benjamin Franklin argues:


 
Quote
I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. — I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth I travelled much, and I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer.[6]


While the poor would clearly object to higher taxes, Franklin argues that those poor who have harder initial burdens, do better on average verses those having money given to them or deducted from payments by a higher authority. Thus, clearly objecting to tax cuts and extreme national help on low-income families.

         
Quote
  When it came down to the specific arguments that were made, Federalist and anti-Federalists parties were not in disagreement of national verses no national authority. Rather, what and how much power should be given to the national authority in order to assure it would not be abused nor mistreated. Internal Taxes were one of the issues which the anti-Federalists felt would be abused. Although their opinions were different, the Founding Fathers were able to work together and compromise on the issue of taxation. As can be seen by the wording of the Constitution, which addresses the needs of both parties: “The Congress shall have Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises…Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective numbers”[7]


[1] Lee. The Anti-Federalist No. 36. 1788. p. 1

[2] Jefferson Memorial Association. The Writings of Thomas Jefferson. 1903. 14:446.

[3] Lee. The Anti-Federalist No. 36. 1788. p. 1

[4] Lee. The Anti-Federalist No. 36. 1788. p. 1

[5] Hamilton. The Federalist #36: The Constitution Society. 8 Jan. 1788. p. 1

[6] Benjermin. On the Price of Corn and Management of the Poor.  1766. P. 1

[7] Jefferson. The Constitution of the United States.  1778. Article 1 section 2-8.

2013-03-22 09:46:44

Source: http://rattlewithus.ning.com/xn/detail/3305780:BlogPost:50759






“The time is now near at hand which must probably determine, whether Americans are to be, Freemen, or Slaves.” G Washington July 2, 1776

Online Bigun

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 20,299
  • The income tax: Root of all evil!
    • The FairTax Plan
Re: San Diego Union Trib: 'WH Compounds IRS Abuse of Power'
« Reply #17 on: December 11, 2013, 06:49:15 AM »
Ahh.  But that simply invites intellectual incoherence.  William Pitt and the English endorsed the income tax, therefore it was an "independent Whig" ideal, or perhaps a "new Tory" ideal (Pitt referred to himself as the former, but was referred to by others as the latter).  The income tax was also endorsed in the US during the Civil War (to name at least one time it was endorsed), which, since it was by the North, would make it a Republican ideal (President Lincoln being a Republican and all).  It was also heartily endorsed by the Democrat party, which would make it a Democrat ideal.  In fact, since it was also adopted, hence endorsed, by the ancient Egyptians, then it is also necessarily an ancient Egyptian ideal.

In other words, under your own reasoning, the income tax is necessarily an ideal for just about every political flavor there's been in this world, which makes it intellectually incoherent, and dishonest, to label it as solely a Marxist ideal and to then argue that it should be abolished because it was a Marxist ideal.  However, since it wasn't just a Marxist ideal, but also an ancient Egyptian ideal, your argument for its abolition necessarily fails because you've provided no basis for the premise that ancient Egyptian ideals are as offensive as are Marxist ideals.

Your reasoning can be reduced, more or less, to a syllogism like so:

(1) Marxist ideals should be abolished,
(2) the income tax was a Marxist ideal,
(3) therefore, the income tax should be abolished.

That reasoning is flawed for the simple reason that it only stands if the income tax was solely a Marxist ideal - that is, if it was not an ideal of any other political view - and since, as you have been so kind to point out, it was also an ancient Egyptian ideal, the syllogism fails because premise (2) is false in the sense that it is not exclusive.

Here is a syllogism, with an extra premise, that demonstrates the fallacy:

(1) Marxist ideals should be abolished,
(2) Republican ideals should be adopted,
(3) the income tax is a Marxist ideal (based on the sources you've cited),
(4) the income tax is a Republican ideal (based on the fact that Republicans have endorsed the income tax),
(5) therefore, the income tax should be abolished and adopted.

If an argument leads to the conclusion P and not-P, then the argument is false.  Your argument - once the unstated premises are fleshed out - leads to precisely that sort of conclusion and is therefore similarly false.

I could write a book in response to this post but will refrain and just say that seem to forget that I have also pointed out that NONE of the instances where income taxes were adopted worked out well for the people involved! Not a single one!

They do however work out very well for a while for those in the very small percentage of the population who find a way to make a living of off them.

BTW, Just as a side note, I'm sure you are aware of the fact that Mr. Lincoln's army, and in fact his administration,  was full of people who had escaped Europe one step ahead of the hangman because of their participation in the failed socialist revolutions there in and around 1848 and that one of them,  Brigadier General Joseph WEYDEMEYER of Lincoln’s army, was a close friend of Karl MARX and Fredrick Engels in the London Communist League. Marx wrote Weydemeyer’s letter of introduction to Charles A. Oceander who just happened to be  Mr Lincoln's Assistant Secretary of War.  Mr Oceander, himself a close friend of Marx, published with Joseph Weydemyer a number of Communist Journals and, also “The Communist Manifesto,” commissioned by Karl Marx. As a member of the Communist/Socialist Fourier Society in America, Oceander was well acquainted with Marx and Marx’s colleague in Communism, Fredrick Engels. Oceander, also, was a friend of all Marxists in Lincoln’s Republican Party, offering assistance to them almost upon their arrival on the American continent. This happened often after receiving introductory letters from Karl MARX, himself. Prior to the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia, no other American did more to promote the cause of communism in the United States than did Oceander. It was due to Oceander’s close friendship and work with the New York Tribune editor, Horace Greeley, another dedicated socialist, that Greeley employed Marx as a correspondent/contributor to the U.S. newspaper. Oceander became the first high-level communist in an American administration---which was the FIRST REPUBLICAN ADMINISTRATION in the United States of America.
« Last Edit: December 11, 2013, 07:42:45 AM by Bigun »

Online Bigun

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 20,299
  • The income tax: Root of all evil!
    • The FairTax Plan
Re: San Diego Union Trib: 'WH Compounds IRS Abuse of Power'
« Reply #18 on: December 11, 2013, 07:11:21 AM »
+++++++++++++++++++++++++

http://beforeitsnews.com/tea-party/2013/03/the-founding-fathers-views-on-taxation-2483688.html

During the framing of the Constitution, the founding fathers quarreled over many issues. The issue of taxation was no different. The two main schools of thought, in regards to taxation, resided between Federalists and anti-Federalist parties. Federalists pushed for national authority over the power to tax, in addition to state proposals. Anti-Federalists objected to federal authority to tax, feeling the power would be illiberally abused.[1] There were, however, issues in which the majority of the founding fathers agreed upon. Contrary to today’s popular beliefs, many of the founding fathers believed the poor should be taxed at a higher rate, in an attempt to motivate them to work thus propelling them out of their poverty.  Also conflicting with modern beliefs, they felt those who worked should be taxed less heavily so as to remunerate them for their endeavors: “To take from one, because it is thought that his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association.”[2] These views are found in the founding fathers private papers as well as delineated throughout the Constitution.

As previously mentioned, the amount of power in which the Federal Government should be granted regarding taxes, was a major altercation amid Federalist and anti-Federalist parties. To further explain these viewpoints, however, one must first understand the difference between external and internal taxation.  An external tax was a duty on any item which was being shipped to a specific colony or state. The tax would be originally paid by the shipper, but then imposed unto the item itself. This is known in present day terms as a tariff. An internal tax, however, was a tax which was imposed directly upon an item, such as a sales tax. The anti-Federalists made a clear distinction between these two types of taxes, which they argued the Federalists grouped into one category. Richard Henry Lee, a renowned anti-Federalist, argued that external taxes were safe because their abuses were minimal and bounded. In regards to internal taxation, he felt the national government would gradually shift tax policy in order to favor their personal prosperity.[3] He explained: “…the power would be improperly lodged in congress, and that it might be abused by imprudent and designing men.”  Lee also questioned the authority of those in power, and made arguments for the power to be left with the people.  “Why give the power to the few, who, when possessed of it, may have address enough to prevent the increase of representation? Why not keep the power, and, when necessary, amend the constitution”[4]

The Federalists tried the best they could to compromise on the issues being voiced at the time. Alexander Hamilton directly addressed the issue in the New York Packet writing:

“There is a simple point of view in which this [tax dispute] may be placed that must be altogether satisfactory. The national legislature can make use of the system of each state within that state. The method of laying and collecting taxes in each State can, in all its parts, be adopted and employed by the federal government.”[5]

Hamilton felt the power should reside in the Federal Government first, and then distributed throughout each state. Lee on the other hand, believed the power should reside in the state first, and maintained by the government. The preeminent argument of the Federalists remained in the belief that one could have a ‘rule of the people’ through representation of the government. Alexander Hamilton argued: “whether the representation of the people be more or less numerous, it will consist almost entirely of proprietors of land, of merchants, and of members of the learned professions, who will truly represent all those different interests and views.”  While authority cannot reside directly in the hands of each individual, he believed that within a state, but both the state and the individual are indirectly granted power by means of representation.

           
 
While the poor would clearly object to higher taxes, Franklin argues that those poor who have harder initial burdens, do better on average verses those having money given to them or deducted from payments by a higher authority. Thus, clearly objecting to tax cuts and extreme national help on low-income families.

         
[1] Lee. The Anti-Federalist No. 36. 1788. p. 1

[2] Jefferson Memorial Association. The Writings of Thomas Jefferson. 1903. 14:446.

[3] Lee. The Anti-Federalist No. 36. 1788. p. 1

[4] Lee. The Anti-Federalist No. 36. 1788. p. 1

[5] Hamilton. The Federalist #36: The Constitution Society. 8 Jan. 1788. p. 1

[6] Benjermin. On the Price of Corn and Management of the Poor.  1766. P. 1

[7] Jefferson. The Constitution of the United States.  1778. Article 1 section 2-8.

2013-03-22 09:46:44

Source: http://rattlewithus.ning.com/xn/detail/3305780:BlogPost:50759


All of that is true but what the founders agreed to and why is well summed up by Hamilton in Federalist 21 to which there was no anti-federalist response that I am aware of.  Here is part of what he said : "..."It is a signal advantage of taxes on articles of consumption that they contain in their own nature a security against excess. They prescribe their own limit, which cannot be exceeded without defeating the end proposed - that is, an extension of the revenue. When applied to this object, the saying is as just as it is witty that, "in political arithmetic, two and two do not always make four." If duties are too high, they lessen the consumption; the collection is eluded; and the product to the treasury is not so great as when they are confined within proper and moderate bounds. This forms a complete barrier against any material oppression of the citizens by taxes of this class, and is itself a natural limitation of the power of imposing them."

Federalist #21 http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa21.htm

I happen to agree with all of that but there is yet more instruction from the founders on this subject to be found!

"A capitation is more natural to slavery; a duty on merchandise is more natural to liberty, by reason it has not so direct a relation to the person." --Thomas Jefferson: copied into his Commonplace Book.

In Federalist 62 we find these words: "...It may be affirmed, on the best grounds, that no small share of the present embarrassments of America is to be charged on the blunders of our governments; and that these have proceeded from the heads rather than the hearts of most of the authors of them. What indeed are all the repealing, explaining, and amending laws, which fill and disgrace our voluminous codes, but so many monuments of deficient wisdom; so many impeachments exhibited by each succeeding against each preceding session; so many admonitions to the people, ...?

....

The internal effects of a mutable policy are still more calamitous. It poisons the blessing of liberty itself. It will be of little avail to the people, that the laws are made by men of their own choice, if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood; if they be repealed or revised before they are promulgated, or undergo such incessant changes that no man, who knows what the law is to-day, can guess what it will be to-morrow. Law is defined to be a rule of action; but how can that be a rule, which is little known, and less fixed?

Another effect of public instability is the unreasonable advantage it gives to the sagacious, the enterprising, and the moneyed few over the industrious and uniformed mass of the people. Every new regulation concerning commerce or revenue, or in any way affecting the value of the different species of property, presents a new harvest to those who watch the change, and can trace its consequences; a harvest, reared not by themselves, but by the toils and cares of the great body of their fellow-citizens. This is a state of things in which it may be said with some truth that laws are made for the FEW, not for the MANY.

In another point of view, great injury results from an unstable government. The want of confidence in the public councils damps every useful undertaking, the success and profit of which may depend on a continuance of existing arrangements. What prudent merchant will hazard his fortunes in any new branch of commerce when he knows not but that his plans may be rendered unlawful before they can be executed? What farmer or manufacturer will lay himself out for the encouragement given to any particular cultivation or establishment, when he can have no assurance that his preparatory labors and advances will not render him a victim to an inconstant government? In a word, no great improvement or laudable enterprise can go forward which requires the auspices of a steady system of national policy."

  http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa62.htm

The income tax code has been amended on average once per day since the year 2000!

And then we have this from the father of modern economic thought:

“The tax which each individual is bound to pay ought to be certain, and not arbitrary. The time of payment, the manner of payment, the quantity to be paid, ought all to be clear and plain to the contributor, and to every other person, so that the tax payer is not put in the power of the tax gatherer.”--Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations, 1776

The income tax does just the opposite and, at the risk of repeating myself, we will never again be a truly FREE people until we rid ourselves of the income tax (clearly endorsed by Marx),  and return to the form of taxation universally endorsed by our founders! Taxes on articles of consumption!






Offline Rapunzel

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 71,719
Re: San Diego Union Trib: 'WH Compounds IRS Abuse of Power'
« Reply #19 on: December 11, 2013, 01:29:16 PM »
Interesting post Bigun... so Laffer adopted his Laffer curve from federalist 21?  Hamilton has been proven correct.
“The time is now near at hand which must probably determine, whether Americans are to be, Freemen, or Slaves.” G Washington July 2, 1776

Online Bigun

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 20,299
  • The income tax: Root of all evil!
    • The FairTax Plan
Re: San Diego Union Trib: 'WH Compounds IRS Abuse of Power'
« Reply #20 on: December 11, 2013, 02:23:44 PM »
Interesting post Bigun... so Laffer adopted his Laffer curve from federalist 21?  Hamilton has been proven correct.

It has been said that "There is nothing new under the sun".  I have come to believe that to be largely true.

Offline olde north church

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 5,136
Re: San Diego Union Trib: 'WH Compounds IRS Abuse of Power'
« Reply #21 on: December 12, 2013, 08:02:21 AM »
It has been said that "There is nothing new under the sun".  I have come to believe that to be largely true.

I have always believed the poor should be taxed.  There are a lot more poor than wealthy.  The rate could be less.  Sort of like an elephant on an ant hill.
I also don't believe property should be taxed.  If it is idle, it generates no income and is more of a strain on one's finances.
Why?  Well, because I'm a bastard, that's why.


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf