Posted on 04/12/2007 7:28:36 AM PDT by EternalVigilance
Hey, how you doin’? A visit to Mike’s is in order next week I think.
Later.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
Bears repeating...
You are simply misunderstanding Brushaber. There was no new power, as Congress already had the power to tax incomes. The purpose of the 16th was to permit the elimination of the distinction of direct and indirect taxes.
Congress did not have the power to lay unapportioned taxes before the 16th, and Congress had no power to lay unapportioned taxes after the 16th.
Read the decision before you read the books from some tax protester who is serving 5 to 10.
Frederick Bastiat in "The Law" explained it very well in his little book.
Bastiat recognized that governments should protect the freedom to earn a living, and he surmised that each attempt to coerce revenue from the productive was to some extent counterproductive to a free society. But he also recognized that a free society cannot exist by itself without structure. If he were alive today, he would not be in favor of the income tax, but rather a tax on consumption, as that would not hinder the production of goods and services as much as an income tax does. But so what?
Sir, that is just false and everyone here knows it.
You mean all the great economists of the world here on FR? Most of us here on FR can distinguish between communism and capitalism. That the government sometimes engages in tactics more indicative of socialism than capitalism does not make us a communist economy by any stretch of the imagination.
Whatever way it is, anything you say is suspect. Communist sympathizer.
I suppose when ignorance is one's only tool, he will resort to such inane personal attacks. You seem to be no exception.
Actually, we have someone who can read and write here, and can use a tad of logic. I don't assume simply because you can log into FR that you are in possession of any of those three abilities....to any measurable degree.
So, you readily, and repeatedly, have ceded the argument, and acknowledged that a tax on consumption is superior, but just don't care.
So, you readily, and repeatedly, have ceded the argument, and acknowledged that a tax on consumption is superior, but just don’t care.
Are you in Republican leadership? /s
How did Keyes get into this discussion?
When it comes to taxes, the "how" is even more important than the "how much," if you care about liberty.
There are many good reasons for abandoning the income tax and going to a consumption tax, but liberty has never entered my mind as one of them. Almost every law in the Nation involves a curtailment of some type of liberty. That is why they are called laws.
He wrote the article we're discussing.
Dang. Try not to be so close-minded.
ROTFLMAO!!!
Laws that infringe on unalienable rights are not laws at all...they are in fact lawless edicts.
No. I can freely and logically look at a legal position without siding with either party. So because I tell you that you are wrong about the 5th Amendment in your arguments against the requirement to file a tax return does not imply that I am somehow pro-income tax. In fact I am not.
MACVSOG68: Actually, we have someone who can read and write here, and can use a tad of logic. I don't assume simply because you can log into FR that you are in possession of any of those three abilities....to any measurable degree. 65
MACVSOG68: How did Keyes get into this discussion? 68
He wrote the article we're discussing.69
MACVSOG68, how does your foot taste? Shall I relode so you can shoot yourself in your other foot.
What I hear you saying is that the citizens of this country exist economically at the pleasure of government and whatever it is that they decide they’ll allow you to have and keep.
The very existence of the income tax is, in a practical sense, an acknowledgment that government owns every single thing that you can produce, either by your skill or by the sweat of your brow. Any portion you get to keep is based on their whim.
Ah. You're an attorney.
Kinda like Giuliani and Clinton "hate" abortion?
I don't know which argument you think I ceded to you; certainly not the silly 5th Amendment one. As I told you before, I would prefer a tax on consumption over an income tax for several reasons. But in the end, I will still likely pay about the same. I think a consumption tax will be good for the economy, but I also recognize that such a major break from one system to the other will likely never happen, just as the social security privatization will likely never happen. As for not caring, there are many serious issues facing us today that I do care about. This isn't one of them. This is more for my amusement.
Heck EV, I thought it was yours. Over the past two or three years, I have continued to downgrade my opinion of him. Maybe he will do his homework next time.
Oh, I take liberty very seriously, but if I pay too much attention to every kind of protest here on FR involving differing opinions of liberty, at the end of the day, I'd mentally be in a gulag.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.