Types of Taxes

[Guest]

I do not remember taxes being mentioned in the constitution. If its not then how can it be against the constitution?

16th Ammendment, Anne.

[MarginOfError]

I do not remember taxes being mentioned in the constitution. If its not then how can it be against the constitution?

It wasn't in the original document, but was added via amendment. There's a contingent of Americans who believe the amendment was passed inappropriately and should therefore be voided.

[Vort]

I never said slavery; you did.

My use of the pronoun "you" in the slavery example wasn't pointed at you (AGStacker). It was a nonspecific pronoun. If we lived 150 years ago in England, I would have used "one" instead of "you".

We haven't even mentioned property tax which is totally against the Constitution. You are never a true property owner with property tax because even if your mortgage is paid off and you don't pay the tax, your house will get auctioned off. This was never what the Founder's envisioned. I think we all would agree here that they are rolling over in their graves.

I agree it is not what the Founders envisioned, and I agree that to a large extent it is corrupt. But to be fair, our modern society incorporates technology-related facets that the Founding Fathers did not envision, indeed could not have envisioned. And even in 1789, the Constitution was a patchwork of compromises, so in that sense we really are not that far off today.

[Guest]

It wasn't in the original document, but was added via amendment. There's a contingent of Americans who believe the amendment was passed inappropriately and should therefore be voided.

Whether it was passed inappropriately or not, it's really too late in the game to void it. I think it is a much less complicated effort to repeal it than to void it.

Edited December 2, 2011 by anatess

[AGStacker]

I do not remember taxes being mentioned in the constitution. If its not then how can it be against the constitution?

Do you think it is right that the government taxes you and then wastes it through some ways I'll list below. Don't forget some of the ways they waste are totally against a virtuous and Christian people.

*Wars without a declaration (haven't had one since WWII)

*Michelle Obama's personnel staff cost taxpayers $1.75 million per year (Michelle Obama's personnel staff cost taxpayers $1.75 million per year - San Diego County Political Buzz | Examiner.com)

*Planned parenthood who funds abortion and promotes no child bearing (Media Ignores What Planned Parenthood Does With Govt Funds | LifeNews.com)

*Along with the abortion issue, ~50 million babies have been aborted in the US, dwarfs the Holocaust

*Social Security which is neither social or secure, SS it 100% a ponzi scheme therefore it is not secure and you are forced to do it therefore it isn't social

This is a very, very small list. The Constitution prevented taxation because they knew how government would wast trillions of dollars on hooking up their buddies. I believe that many of the political heads are Gadiantons.

[annewandering]

It wasn't in the original document, but was added via amendment. There's a contingent of Americans who believe the amendment was passed inappropriately and should therefore be voided.

Nearly every case brought before the court, on this subject, has been deemed frivolous. In the cases actually heard it has been firmly upheld.

Doesnt seem to make taxes unconstitutional does it?

[Dravin]

I do not remember taxes being mentioned in the constitution. If its not then how can it be against the constitution?

Others have address the first part, but I'd like to comment on the second half of your post. One thing to keep in mind is the 10th Amendment:

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

This amendment makes the constitution a limiting document on the authority of the Federal government. What it boils down to is if authority to do something isn't granted to the Federal government that authority isn't theirs. Now obviously what powers are granted the Federal government are up to debate and ultimately the interpretation of the Supreme Court of the United States of America, but absent authority granted by the constitution to the Federal government it is overstepping the limitations of powers given it by the constitution. Or in other words the exercise of such authority is unconstitutional.

That said a lot of people like to cry, "Unconstitutional!" when the powers they interpret in the US Constitution are different then powers the US Supreme Court interprets in the US Constitution.

Edited December 2, 2011 by Dravin

[AGStacker]

My use of the pronoun "you" in the slavery example wasn't pointed at you (AGStacker). It was a nonspecific pronoun. If we lived 150 years ago in England, I would have used "one" instead of "you".

I agree it is not what the Founders envisioned, and I agree that to a large extent it is corrupt. But to be fair, our modern society incorporates technology-related facets that the Founding Fathers did not envision, indeed could not have envisioned. And even in 1789, the Constitution was a patchwork of compromises, so in that sense we really are not that far off today.

I think you and I think similarly. The main difference is that I believe we have strayed light years away from the Constitution. Especially since 9/11.

While the Constitution remains intact, I believe a Western world depression is approaching where I can foresee a global elite trying to replace the Constitution. The visions I have read, along with quotes from the Prophet Joseph and early leaders, indicate that this will not happen but America will be cleansed with bloodshed worse than the Civil War.

If this seems extreme to you, read about the Weimar's Republic of Germany account of hyperinflation and the rise of Hitler.

[AGStacker]

Others have address the first part, but I'd like to comment on the second half of your post. One thing to keep in mind is the 10th Amendment:

This amendment makes the constitution a limiting document on the authority of the Federal government. What it boils down to is if authority to do something isn't granted to the Federal government that authority isn't theirs. Now obviously what powers are granted the Federal government are up to debate and ultimately the interpretation of the Supreme Court of the United States of America, but absent authority granted by the constitution to the Federal government it is overstepping the limitations of powers given it by the constitution. Or in other words the exercise of such authority is unconstitutional.

That said a lot of people like to cry, "Unconstitutional!" when the powers they interpret in the US Constitution are different then powers the US Supreme Court interprets in the US Constitution.

Do you believe that even the Supreme Court could be swayed to interpret the Constitution differently from what the Founders intended? Even the Saints of old know this first hand. It was the government who persecuted the Saints, created an extermination order, drove them out, went to war against them, imprisoned them for polygamy and threaten them that if they didn't cease it they would never become a state.

Income taxes fill the Supreme Courts members pockets more fully. That is for sure and every politician at that. The American empire is coming to an end soon.

[annewandering]

Do you think it is right that the government taxes you and then wastes it through some ways I'll list below. Don't forget some of the ways they waste are totally against a virtuous and Christian people.

*Wars without a declaration (haven't had one since WWII)

*Michelle Obama's personnel staff cost taxpayers $1.75 million per year (Michelle Obama's personnel staff cost taxpayers $1.75 million per year - San Diego County Political Buzz | Examiner.com)

*Planned parenthood who funds abortion and promotes no child bearing (Media Ignores What Planned Parenthood Does With Govt Funds | LifeNews.com)

*Along with the abortion issue, ~50 million babies have been aborted in the US, dwarfs the Holocaust

*Social Security which is neither social or secure, SS it 100% a ponzi scheme therefore it is not secure and you are forced to do it therefore it isn't social

This is a very, very small list. The Constitution prevented taxation because they knew how government would wast trillions of dollars on hooking up their buddies. I believe that many of the political heads are Gadiantons.

That hardly has anything to do with the taxes being constitutional. Of course no one wants their taxes to be wasted or spent on things they dont like. And why do you insert Christian in your comment. Other people live here besides Christians and they are represented as well, not that they want to waste their tax money either.

Truth is there is no tax that is fair to everyone. Probably the graduated tax system is more fair than anything else if there are few, if any, exclusions.

[Guest]

We haven't even mentioned property tax which is totally against the Constitution. You are never a true property owner with property tax because even if your mortgage is paid off and you don't pay the tax, your house will get auctioned off. This was never what the Founder's envisioned. I think we all would agree here that they are rolling over in their graves.

Property Taxes cannot be against the Constitution of the United States because property taxes are not taxed by the Federal Government.

If your State Constitution or your County/City Law rules that you have to pay property taxes to the State/County/City, then it is completely constitutional.

[Dravin]

Do you believe that even the Supreme Court could be swayed to interpret the Constitution differently from what the Founders intended?

Two comments:

1) Inherent in your question, or at least there seems to be, is the idea that the US constitution was not meant to be a living document. I don't particularly feel like getting into a debate over if it is or not, but it's not the only way to view the US constitution. That men in 2011 view and interpret the US constitution different then men in the 1780s is not necessarily a perversion of it.

2) Constitutionality is determine by the supreme court even if in some sense it is 'wrong'. One can argue a ruling is against the intent or spirit of the constitution, but the power to rule on the Constitutionality of cases is the US Supreme court's.

Edited December 2, 2011 by Dravin

[Guest]

Truth is there is no tax that is fair to everyone. Probably the graduated tax system is more fair than anything else if there are few, if any, exclusions.

The graduated tax system is the source of all evil!

Okay, hyperbole there.

Really, the graduated tax system is the best way to put a divide between rich and poor and start a wealth war. It cannot be fair by virtue of who gets to decide who pays the higher percentage and who gets a free ride. Basically, you can vote yourself a lower tax rate and vote others a higher tax rate. Hardly seems fair.

The Fair Tax. Look it up. It's fairer than that.

Edited December 2, 2011 by anatess

[AGStacker]

Property Taxes cannot be against the Constitution of the United States because property taxes are not taxed by the Federal Government.

If your State Constitution or your County/City Law rules that you have to pay property taxes to the State/County/City, then it is completely constitutional.

Right but the Federal government is to make sure the state governments don't overstep their bounds. Meaning the Federal government could rule that property tax is not Constitutional and abolish the property tax.

[Vort]

Property Taxes cannot be against the Constitution of the United States because property taxes are not taxed by the Federal Government.

If your State Constitution or your County/City Law rules that you have to pay property taxes to the State/County/City, then it is completely constitutional.

In fact, the Constitution explicitly delegates to the states all powers it does not reserve for the federal government, which would include levying property taxes.

[AGStacker]

That hardly has anything to do with the taxes being constitutional. Of course no one wants their taxes to be wasted or spent on things they dont like. And why do you insert Christian in your comment. Other people live here besides Christians and they are represented as well, not that they want to waste their tax money either.

Truth is there is no tax that is fair to everyone. Probably the graduated tax system is more fair than anything else if there are few, if any, exclusions.

I erred in saying just Christians but a virtuous people is necessary.

"Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become more corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters."

Benjamin Franklin

[Guest]

Right but the Federal government is to make sure the state governments don't overstep their bounds. Meaning the Federal government could rule that property tax is not Constitutional and abolish the property tax.

You got this backwards. The States make sure the Federal government don't overstep their bounds. All power that is not specifically ruled by the United States Constitution rests with the States. Basically, the Federal Government cannot tell a State what to do unless it goes against a ruling in the US Constitution. And all ammendments to the Constitution has to be ratified by at least 3/4 of all the States. There is no ruling in the US Constitution that prohibits property taxes, so the States CAN collect it if they find it necessary to do so. If the people want to prohibit State property taxes for ALL States, it has, first to convince their State Legislatures to agree to it, then have it proposed to the US Congress, then have 3/4 of all the State governments to ratify it.

And I'm Filipino, so if I mis-stated, please correct me.

Edited December 2, 2011 by anatess

[AGStacker]

Two comments:

1) Inherent in your question, or at least there seems to be, is the idea that the US constitution was not meant to be a living document. I don't particularly feel like getting into a debate over if it is or not, but it's not the only way to view the US constitution. That men in 2011 view and interpret the US constitution different then men in the 1780s is not necessarily a perversion of it.

2) Constitutionality is determine by the supreme court even if in some sense it is 'wrong'. One can argue a ruling is against the intent or spirit of the constitution, but the power to rule on the Constitutionality of cases is the US Supreme court's.

1) I suggest you read this. Our Divine Constitution - Ensign Nov. 1987 - ensign

2) You are right about the Supreme Court but you must recognize if they interpret it incorrectly a citizen should not be forced to follow the interpretation. In fact there was a specific court case in the 1800s that discussed this. I will try to find it.

[AGStacker]

You got this backwards. The States make sure the Federal government don't overstep their bounds. All power that is not specifically ruled by the United States Constitution rests with the States. Basically, the Federal Government cannot tell a State what to do unless it goes against a ruling in the US Constitution. And all ammendments to the Constitution has to be ratified by at least 3/4 of all the States. There is no ruling in the US Constitution that prohibits property taxes, so the States CAN collect it if they find it necessary to do so. If the people want to prohibit State property taxes for ALL States, it has, first to convince their State Legislatures to agree to it, then have it proposed to Congress, then have 3/4 of all the State governments to ratify it.

What do you think I meant when I said "overstep their bounds"?

[AGStacker]

Basically, the Federal Government cannot tell a State what to do unless it goes against a ruling in the US Constitution.

This is repeating what I originally said.

[Dravin]

1) I suggest you read this. Our Divine Constitution - Ensign Nov. 1987 - ensign

I skimmed it but I didn't see where it claimed it is a doctrine of the Church that the constitution is not supposed to be a living document. Honestly if that was the case they'd not have built into it a method of amending it.

Edited December 2, 2011 by Dravin

[MarginOfError]

I skimmed it but I didn't see where it claimed it is a doctrine of the Church that the constitution is not supposed to be a living document. Honestly if that was the case they'd not have built into it a method of amending it.

And, if that were the case that the "Divine Constitution" wasn't supposed to be a living document, shouldn't the latter-day saints be opposed to the nullification of the three-fifths compromise?

Personally, I think President Benson did a disservice by using the term "Divine Constitution." There's nothing more divine about the Constitution than there is about the Church Handbook of Instructions.

[AGStacker]

This sums up the reason the Constitution was created. The Constitution was created to allow a man, woman or child do whatever they want, however they want and wherever they want as long as they didn't molest another person or another person's property.

*I'm not using molest in the manner which it is usually written today.

[AGStacker]

I skimmed it but I didn't see where it claimed it is a doctrine of the Church that the constitution is not supposed to be a living document. Honestly if that was the case they'd not have built into it a method of amending it.

I never said whether it should be a living document or not. I just want to follow it. We hardly honor or follow the Constitution here in America.

[Dravin]

And, if that were the case that the "Divine Constitution" wasn't supposed to be a living document, shouldn't the latter-day saints be opposed to the nullification of the three-fifths compromise?

Personally, I think President Benson did a disservice by using the term "Divine Constitution." There's nothing more divine about the Constitution than there is about the Church Handbook of Instructions.

Heck, if such was the case shouldn't we be opposed to any amendment outside of the original Bill of Rights? Possibly even them but I'm inclined to give them a pass considering how soon after the ratification of the constitution they came.