4
4
0
Widely disputed amendment allowing congress to levy taxes. It has definitely played a role, more recently in taxing those [infidels] who did not sign up for Obamacare. Are you for or against this or other constitutional revisions?
Constitution
Congress
Taxes
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 14
7
7
0
The problem with the 16th amendment is that it somewhat nullifies the 10th amendment. Fiscal federalism then becomes more potent than true federalism. As a result, national defense and foreign policy get lumped in with other interests, and loses their priority and importance.
(7)
(0)
SSG Gerhard S.
@Lt Col Erika Cashin, Great point. Every Federal over-reach that goes unchallenged is a detriment to the foundations of the Constitution and allows the Central government to be less restrained in it's actions than designed. The Federal government funded itself with Excise taxes up until 1913. The Question is NOT "how do we fund the Government at it's current level?" But rather "How easy will it be to fund a government that is HELD to it's Constitutional Limits?"
(4)
(0)
Lt Col (Join to see)
It's funny...after the recent mid-term election, a congressman said "we need to find a way to send more money back to the states." In reality, the process of sending it up, then sending it back down, totally dilutes it (time, man hours, etc.). The point should actually be to leave it in the city, county, state to begin with, so they can use it according to their specific need.
*All personal editorial of course
*All personal editorial of course
(4)
(0)
SSG Gerhard S.
Exactly, not only does such action dilute the funds, it has Federal strings attached on its way back down that robs the States of their power.
(0)
(0)
LTC (Join to see)
I'm a huge supporter of the 10th Amendment, get the Feds out of everything except National Defense and interstate commerce where they belong.
(1)
(0)
5
5
0
Then who would fund the Congressional pension fund? I know, put in the stock market like all our 401Ks.
(5)
(0)
(2)
(0)
SSG Gerhard S.
The Question is NOT "how do we fund the Government at it's current level?" But rather "How easy will it be to fund a government that is HELD to it's Constitutional Limits?"
(1)
(0)
2
2
0
I personally would love to see either a flat tax system (and government cuts to deal with that) or some manner of taxation where the states pay a percentage by their population, but the populace only pays state taxes to those states they live in. Also possibly a flat tax.
This would give the states power again, if the federal powers attempt to seize too much power, the states that disagree or are harmed can hold back the tax money at the state level.
This would give the states power again, if the federal powers attempt to seize too much power, the states that disagree or are harmed can hold back the tax money at the state level.
(2)
(0)
SSG Gerhard S.
All taxes are the same, and only on NEW purchases. (No taxes for used cars, clothing, etc.) BUT, All taxes are returned to EACH citizen on a monthly basis (they call this a "Prebate") on the sales taxes would have been spent up to the Poverty level. Meaning that those making below the poverty limit pay NO taxes.
(2)
(0)
SSG Gerhard S.
So, a Family of 4 would receive 23% of the Federal poverty level of 23,850 meaning they would get a monthly "Prebate" check of approx 457.00 per month.
For this reason, the Fair-tax encourages LEGAL immigration because illegals would NOT get the benefit of the Prebate, and would pay the entire 23%.
For this reason, the Fair-tax encourages LEGAL immigration because illegals would NOT get the benefit of the Prebate, and would pay the entire 23%.
(1)
(0)
CPT Zachary Brooks
Also good to hear. Would this also work to remove/modify programs such as welfare, unemployment, etc as subsidies to people's incomes?
(1)
(0)
SSG Gerhard S.
Unfortunately, the Fairtax does NOT address spending. That is the purview of Congress. So there are no provisions in the Bill regarding Welfare, (corporate or individual), unemployment etc. Although it is important to note that eliminating the Income tax, including the 35% Corporate income tax should go a long way to spur business in the Country, as well as the migration to the US of businesses from other countries.
(1)
(0)
2
2
0
2
2
0
I am for constitutional revisions on an as needed basis. There is clear precedent with the 27 amendments to the document already. Including one amendment repealing another (prohibition).
All that being said, there are some who believe that the 16th amendment was fraudulently ratified.
All that being said, there are some who believe that the 16th amendment was fraudulently ratified.
(2)
(0)
1
1
0
Not a lawyer, but Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1 of the US Constitution grants the federal government the ability to levy taxes. This comes from happened during the failed Confederation of States, where a weak central government had little to no authority to pay off war debt. So while I am no fan of the IRS, it does make sense that we need an instrument that allows the government to the day to business of building schools, bridges, roads, provide for the common defense, and things of this nature.
The 16th Amendment would come later to further define the role of the federal government in its ability to tax.
Now you propose doing away with the 16th but you propose no counter argument for what to replace it with
The 16th Amendment would come later to further define the role of the federal government in its ability to tax.
Now you propose doing away with the 16th but you propose no counter argument for what to replace it with
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
17th would be the one to repeal we already have representation in the HOUSE. Senators are the state legislature's voice no more 6 year fiefdoms.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
Yes, Repeal the 16th Amendment, and the 17th amendment also, while we're at it... the Senate was supposed to be elected by the State's respective Legislatures to represent the State's Interests in the Central Government, NOT to act generally for that Central government as they do now.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
I am for any type of tax revision as long as it is less invasive and not more.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
I'm for repeal of this and the 17th Amendment.
The income tax is the operand of most of the harmful dislocations in our economy.
The 17th is simply opposite of the idea of a republican form of government which is supposed to be guaranteed to us.
The income tax is the operand of most of the harmful dislocations in our economy.
The 17th is simply opposite of the idea of a republican form of government which is supposed to be guaranteed to us.
(1)
(0)
MSG (Join to see)
That's one way to put it.
I'd say that I want to restore the State's role in our Federal governance. The citizen already has a roll in selecting their representatives.
I was prepared to congratulate you for not being insulting, but you've failed again. Do you think that the authors in the convention failed to live up to "We the People" by designing the Senate in the first place?
I'd say that I want to restore the State's role in our Federal governance. The citizen already has a roll in selecting their representatives.
I was prepared to congratulate you for not being insulting, but you've failed again. Do you think that the authors in the convention failed to live up to "We the People" by designing the Senate in the first place?
(1)
(0)
MSG (Join to see)
The Tenth Amendment is the most ignored provision of the Constitution, so....
The size of the country had nothing to do with the 17th Amendment. It was simply a populist, progressive measure and I'd say it panders to special interest groups far more than not having it.
What's more, if the people of a state dearly wanted direct election, they could still have it, through various methods, with out any amendment.
The size of the country had nothing to do with the 17th Amendment. It was simply a populist, progressive measure and I'd say it panders to special interest groups far more than not having it.
What's more, if the people of a state dearly wanted direct election, they could still have it, through various methods, with out any amendment.
(1)
(0)
SSG Gerhard S.
MSgt Bill Jones, I am in agreement with SFC White. The Framers did NOT want the direct election of Senators, for they feared they would become beholden to the Federal Foreign and International influences to which they HAVE become beholden to. The Senate was INTENTIONALLY designed to represent the best Interests of the Respective States in Washington DC, and NOT the Interests of donors in other States, or from special interest groups as they do today. FDR supported and forced through the 17th Amendment to TAKE power away from the States and to Consolidate that power in Washington DC. He was trying to TAKE power away from the people, not give them more as you suggest is the case with a direct election.
(1)
(0)
SSG Gerhard S.
MSgt Bill Jones Another example of FDR's quest for consolidation of power in DC was his proposal to increase the number of Supreme Court Justices so HE could nominate a Majority of Justices in HIS image. When FDR first took office he had a complicit Supreme court... As time went on, FDR's incessant unconstitutional behavior and the Court's willing behavior left the court with a loss of credibility. Finally the Court began challenging FDR's power grabs. FDR's Solution? He tried to create a situation whereby he could simply add more Justices to the court..... to ensure his vision had a majority in the Supreme court.
MSGT.. I will not insult you, but I will address your words. I find it disconcerting that you are quick to label anybody unhappy with the current system as "right wing", while ignoring the Progressives who, in a lust for Centralized power put those very Amendments in place.
MSGT.. I will not insult you, but I will address your words. I find it disconcerting that you are quick to label anybody unhappy with the current system as "right wing", while ignoring the Progressives who, in a lust for Centralized power put those very Amendments in place.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google