What Say Ye, Gentlemen?
An Amendment to the Constitution of the United States
Section 1. The sixteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United State is hereby repealed.
Section 2. The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes on incomes, without apportionment among the several States.
Section 3. No capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless equal and in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.
COMPARE WITH:
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived without apportionment among the several States and without regard to any census or enumeration. Amendment 16.
You will note I dropped the two following phrases from the 16th Amendment “From whatever source derived. . . “ and “without regard to any census or enumeration.”
In final analysis of my Model Tax Law, Sections 2 and 3 are merely restatements of Article 1. Section 8, the first and last clauses of the same. So, this is hardly mine and hardly new. It’s just never been tried before even though it was in the Constitution from the beginning.
Comments (12)
They should not be taxing income.
They should tax sales.
Sales Tax?
Sorry, Friend, that's a runaway tax. My Amendment would LIMIT the taxes to the legitimate costs of government and would be divided apportionally between every man 21 years and above. Your system has no restraints whatsoever! It would cost you thousands of dollars a year, And MINE is Constitutional.
You are proposing a Constitutional Amendment, then say your proposal is Constitutional.
Those are contra-indicated.
Anyway, until the individual gets to define income as profit, and deduct costs of living, I'll go with sales.
Sobi, you're ignorance is showing! What a shame! Have you ever read Art. 1. Sec. 8 of the United States Constitution? If you did, do you understand what it meant? It's a Constitutional Amendment to RESTORE Art. 1, Sec. 8, which Amendment 16 destroyed and has given us the 2nd and 5th planks of the Communist Manifesto!
Your conclusion of "going with sales tax" is like saying, "I'd rather pay $3,000 instead of only $200 for the same things." What kind of sense, patriotic or financial, is that kind of "thinking?" I think it's the inability to admit you were wrong when it's soo obvious.
I looked briefly at your history here and cannot yet tell what you know of the Constitution which is the "Supreme Law of the Land." But there is a cure for ignorance while stupidity is a terminal condition. I pray you will get a bit of education here and with your learning get some wisdom. IF we are to survive as a country the federal government has to have some kind of financial support. Our forefathers gave us the Constitutional method and along came the boobs who turned it into the 16th Amendment. WE NEVER USED Art. 1, Sec 8. Not one time! You would suggest an insane type of "sales tax." I have lived in Europe and can tell you what it does! WE DON'T WANT OR NEED THAT IN AMERICA. If you took the total LEGITIMATE costs of government and divided it EQUALLY between every 20 year old male, the costs would be around $200 per head. Who, whether rich or poor could object to that!
So, my proposed Amendment is NOT "contra-indicated" unless you're already of the opinion that the Constitution has been scrapped -- as the practice in our country would seem to indicate.
My proposal gets rid of the problem "state apportionment" created. It was unfair. The people in Rhode Island would have paid far more than the people in California. That was a system whereby you took the total costs of government and divided them first amongst the states, and then again amongst the people of that state. VERY unfair. So, my amendment makes EVERYONE, poor and rich alike, pay the same amount.
If you're influenced at all by God's methods and ideologies, then you would have to admit that his method (Ex. 30:15) was perfect as not one class of a society was put into slavery for another class. They all paid the same. THINK it through, My Friend.
I do not succumb to argumentum ad hominem very often. Your attack is insufficient to provoke me.
You are putting a spin on my words for which you have already crafted an argument. That doesn't make what I said mean what you are arguing against.
Preferring a sales tax to income tax is not equivalent to preferring an unlimited tax to a limited one.
Take chill pill. Perhaps there is a better way, but the income tax isn't it.
Oh sure, we'll get right on it. Next you're going to want to repeal the 17 amendment so our guys in the Senate can't make any more special deals for the good of the public interest. Don't worry, be happy. Hey, isn't American Idol on? Hurry go check!
:-D
Funny Mr. Soetoro, but you may be only one of four so far who actually understood what they read. :-/
Thirteen don't know that it would be Constitutional or don't care. Probably both.
Hey! I think Idol IS on, but since I'm over seas I never watch it. :-)
Let the Revolution begin. :-D
Don,
You continue to mix agreement with intelligence as if they were the same thing. Don't argue so desperately that you are reduced to personal attacks when people disagree.
I understand your point. However, I think to alter the tax system with constitutional amendments could better begin with a removal of the 16th.
It is not unconstitutional if government ceases to use the power in the 16th.
Passion may beget anger, but persuasion demands that you limit your public words to the passion part, and tell your personal friends what idiots we are.
Sobi, you just didn't understand what you "read." I can prove that by your statement of:
"I understand your point. However, I think to alter the tax system with constitutional amendments could better begin with a removal of the 16th."
It may improve your thinking if you looked in the "uncatagorized" section of OpenGov. I can't blame you for your reading ability as that was the fault of your teachers. Please check out "uncatagorized" and SEE that we're on the same side! I reposted this with the change of words that appeals to people who don't read very well.
Here's the URL. Can you spot the differences? http://opengov.ideascale.com/akira/ideafactory.do?discussionID=2255
Don, you little buffoon, I already gave you a thumbs up on that one.
Now grow up, or go play with other people.
Well, correct me if I'm wrong. Firstly, I can't tell who gave a thumbs up. Secondly, and apparently, based upon what you have written above, you don't realize that an AMENDMENT to the US Constitution is REQUIRED to REPEAL. To wit:
Amendment XXI
Section 1. The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.
Section 2. The transportation or importation into any state, territory, or possession of the United States for delivery or use therein of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited.
Section 3. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by conventions in the several states, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the states by the Congress.
Perhaps you'll notice two things: My form followed the above form to a "T." And by changing the words "An Amendment to the United States Constitution" to "REPEAL the 16th Amendment" but with EXACTLY IDENTICAL measures and the subsequent positive votes PROVES that people can't and don't read.
Sadly, today, "growing up" has nothing to do with reading. It's just another part of the overall problem we're faced with in America. Be willing, however, to admit your error when you are in error. It stops the "play" right on the spot. All the best, Don Wood