Do we really need Amendment XVI?

Rygel · Dec 10, 2005

Amendment XVI said:
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.

My question is this. Obviously, there were enough people in most of the states that liked this amendment to allow it to pass.

My question is this. In order for a civilized society to function, should the government be allowed to appropriate money directly from the income of individuals?

Crusader05 · Dec 10, 2005

Yes, if American want to continue to live in a nation with a high standard of living, a first-class military, a decent education system, a functional infastructure, etc.

Living in a civilized nation requires money, so someone has to pay.

CCGirl · Dec 10, 2005

ballfan · Dec 11, 2005

Its fair to tax incomes. Its even fair to tax some more than others. The money needed to run the country has to come from somewhere.

quantumspirit · Dec 11, 2005

yes, we need some sort of progressive tax to balance out the regressive taxes. Having a federal sales tax, which would come to 20-something percent, would hurt the poor much more than the rich.

Rygel · Dec 11, 2005

ballfan said:
Its fair to tax incomes. Its even fair to tax some more than others. The money needed to run the country has to come from somewhere.

Isn't 20% of the GDP a little excessive?

zoink · Dec 11, 2005

Rygel said:
Isn't 20% of the GDP a little excessive?

I think it is more in the neighborhood of 29.6 % of GDP.

Sincerely,
zoink

Rygel · Dec 11, 2005

zoink said:
I think it is more in the neighborhood of 29.6 % of GDP.

Sincerely,
zoink

Actually, I was referring to what those taxes are paying for. The federal budget for 2005 was somewhere around $2.2 trillion which happens to be 20% of the U.S. GDP.

30% of the GDP in taxes is still a lot though.

Moros · Dec 11, 2005

Taxation of income is a necessary evil, the gross misappropriation of said tax money by the government is not.

ballfan · Dec 11, 2005

Rygel said:
Isn't 20% of the GDP a little excessive?

Probably

The trouble is that most people can't actually see how much tax they pay. If they did away with all the add on taxes and made income tax absolutely the only tax collected in the US, people would get a better picture. Probably revolt too.

Spending should be cut. Most politicians love spending regardless of the party. We need more Senator No types. Where are you Jesse Helms? We need you. People like him who can really make hard choices.

TheDaywalker · Dec 11, 2005

Federal income taxes are neccessary, and it we don't learn ot curb spending at some point they are going to go up. I agree that the system needs some reform thought, it is simply to confusiong and the transaction cost associated with tax brokers and the rich "hiding" wealth is just absurd. I have with the rich getting out of paying some taxes (they pay for most of them as it is), but they end up spending a lot of the money they saved on some ******* with a law degree.

zoink · Dec 11, 2005

Rygel said:
Actually, I was referring to what those taxes are paying for. The federal budget for 2005 was somewhere around $2.2 trillion which happens to be 20% of the U.S. GDP.

30% of the GDP in taxes is still a lot though.

Oops my bad.

Sincerely,
zoink

MoonlessNight · Dec 11, 2005

Try as I might I can't find one way to justify income taxes (at least as they are set up now) without resorting to things such as "sure it may be bad for some people to lose some income, but it's for the good of the nation, and they'll get over it." But in that case I can't see why the government (theoretically) has no right to do things like, say, force you to donate blood, or spend a week a year doing community service.

blueapplepaste · Dec 11, 2005

ballfan said:
Most politicians love spending regardless of the party.

This is so very true. It's easy to say "I will curb spending" when you're not in office. But then you think of all the stuff you could spend all this money and it gets the better of everyone. All politicians say they want to scale back government size and its spending until theire the ones running the show, then they want more more more. Human nature and greed at it's best.

And yes, the government should be allowed to tax income. You know that best military in the world, someone has to pay for it, and why not the people who reap its benefits: the citizens.

Alarum · Dec 11, 2005

I'm not getting enough brownies here...

Rygel · Dec 11, 2005

Alarum said:
I'm not getting enough brownies here...

Me neither.

I voted for that just to skew my own poll.

one love · Dec 12, 2005

Yes, it is allways fair to steal from people. It is always fair to steal and then say you will spend that money on what those you stole from want it spent on. It is always fair to then pocket a certain percent, enact frivolous laws, give contracts to certain companies based on bribes. It is always fair to steal money from someone and then tell them that they must once again 'help' the nation by allowi9ng more money to be stolen from them to pay for a $300 billion a year bonanza. It is always fair...

Go ahead and wiff me up a fresh batch of them magical brownies.

Verv · Dec 12, 2005

I voted 'yes.'

Prior to the 16th amendment the income of the government came from varied excise taxes and a large portion of the income went to the maintenace of a tremendous bureaucracy that was incapable of doing anything, so in the end we had to create an amendment to serve that point.

Rygel · Dec 12, 2005

one love said:
Yes, it is allways fair to steal from people. It is always fair to steal and then say you will spend that money on what those you stole from want it spent on. It is always fair to then pocket a certain percent, enact frivolous laws, give contracts to certain companies based on bribes. It is always fair to steal money from someone and then tell them that they must once again 'help' the nation by allowi9ng more money to be stolen from them to pay for a $300 billion a year bonanza. It is always fair...

Go ahead and wiff me up a fresh batch of them magical brownies.

I think you've had your fair share of my magical brownies.

Voegelin · Dec 12, 2005

Sure tax incomes. Just don't allow anyone on a government payroll to vote. Their #1 priority to increase taxes and give themselves raises.

Do we really need Amendment XVI?

Should the government be allowed to directly tax income?

Yes.

No.

Bake me some magical brownies, because your poll is annoying and doesn't include my answer.

Rygel

Guest

Veteran

Resident Commie

Well-Known Member

evangelical humanist

Rygel

Guest

:-)

Rygel

Guest

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Member

:-)

Fides et Ratio

the purpose of life is a life of purpose

Well-Known Member

Rygel

Guest

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Rygel

Guest

Reactionary

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency