We have the 16th amendment - but where does it say about property and other taxes?

Iamme · 19th September 2010, 08:58 AM

Is it constitutional for the gov't to be collecting all these other taxes, and even hidden taxes they call "fees"?

drkitten · 19th September 2010, 09:03 AM

Originally Posted by Iamme

Is it constitutional for the gov't to be collecting all these other taxes, and even hidden taxes they call "fees"?

Yes.

AaronMHatch · 19th September 2010, 09:06 AM

The government has the right to collect taxes via this:

Section 8 - Powers of Congress

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States

----------

As far as I know, the 16th amendment was created in order to settle the confusion over direct and indirect taxes.

linusrichard · 19th September 2010, 02:31 PM

Property taxes? To my knowledge, the federal government doesn't collect them (with the possible exception of DC, which is different).

Upchurch · 19th September 2010, 04:31 PM

[/thread]

Cain · 19th September 2010, 08:16 PM

It's actually highly illegal for the government to collect taxes; last I checked, we don't live Communist Russia. So don't pay. It's not like you can go to jail. If men with guns do show up at your home, then bust out some Wesley Snipes moves.

Grizzly Adams · 20th September 2010, 12:11 AM

Originally Posted by AaronMHatch

As far as I know, the 16th amendment was created in order to settle the confusion over direct and indirect taxes.

Actually, it was an apportionment issue...

drkitten · 20th September 2010, 04:58 AM

Originally Posted by linusrichard

Property taxes? To my knowledge, the federal government doesn't collect them (with the possible exception of DC, which is different).

Well, if you want the full story, the Fed has the authority to collect taxes because it says so in Article I, but there's some argle-bargle about "direct taxes" in there, which is why the Fed has lots of transaction taxes but few simple give-us-your-money taxes (like property tax).

The States have the authority to collect taxes of any type because the States have any power they want as long as it isn't forbidden to them in the Constitution -- and the list of forbidden powers is extremely short.

Cities, Counties, and whatnot, have the authority to collect taxes because the State has delegated that authority to them.

Beerina · 20th September 2010, 08:12 AM

Originally Posted by drkitten

Cities, Counties, and whatnot, have the authority to collect taxes because the State has delegated that authority to them.

Is even this always, or historically the case? Long ago villages might just start taxing, yet there was no state "law" saying how this should be done, or even if it could be done? I guess that's more law history though

Thunder · 20th September 2010, 02:49 PM

yes, taxes are legal.

geni · 20th September 2010, 02:56 PM

Originally Posted by Beerina

Is even this always, or historically the case? Long ago villages might just start taxing, yet there was no state "law" saying how this should be done, or even if it could be done? I guess that's more law history though

Long ago I can't imagaine there were many villages worth taxing.

theprestige · 20th September 2010, 06:34 PM

Originally Posted by geni

Long ago I can't imagaine there were many villages worth taxing.

As long as there's been one dude with a knack for farming and another dude with a knack for cracking skulls, there's been a village worth taxing--though if the two dudes were on friendly terms, they probably called it "sharing".

Greediguts · 21st September 2010, 08:31 AM

The IRS has a FAQ re: frivolous tax arguments. You can read it here.

drkitten · 21st September 2010, 08:45 AM

Originally Posted by Beerina

Is even this always, or historically the case? Long ago villages might just start taxing, yet there was no state "law" saying how this should be done, or even if it could be done? I guess that's more law history though

It's been the case since the rise of the nation-state and the theory of "sovereignty" in the 16th and 17th centuries; historians when pressed use 1648 and the Treaty of Westphalia as the establishment of the idea of a collection of "sovereign" nation-states, where national authority was supreme and unfettered within its territories.

The United States is a very unusual country, legally speaking, in that it is not a nation-state, but a collection of "sovereign" states that it itself a sovereign state as well. This creates the rather unusual "dual sovereignty" doctrine in the United States. Most countries don't have anything like this; the government of the nation-state (e.g. Parliament, in the case of England or Canada) is sovereign and local governments act through delegated authority at the pleasure and whim of the national authority.

Even the UK has single-sovereignty in this sense; Parliament is supreme over Scotland and Northern Ireland as well as England.

TubbaBlubba · 21st September 2010, 10:00 AM

No, taxes are illegal, don't pay them, Dr. Dino didn't.

sarge · 21st September 2010, 10:13 AM

Long since settled issue. The federal goverment has an absolute authority to collect taxes, including income and property taxes.

Questions of constitutionality that are specifically addressed by the court are no longer questions.

geni · 21st September 2010, 10:29 AM

Originally Posted by theprestige

As long as there's been one dude with a knack for farming and another dude with a knack for cracking skulls, there's been a village worth taxing--though if the two dudes were on friendly terms, they probably called it "sharing".

"Rent" seems more likely. In you senario what interest does the cracking skulls dude have in mearly taxing the farmer? Various forms of rent (see fudalism) are a more resonable approach.

The problem you have is that while taxes have been dirrectly leveled on serfs the amount you get per serf is so low it's not worthwhile for sub state level entity. Yeomen, skilled traders and some miners who were worth taxing were generaly powerful enough that taxing them required the backing of a state level entity.

Iamme · 22nd September 2010, 04:21 PM

Originally Posted by AaronMHatch

The government has the right to collect taxes via this:

Section 8 - Powers of Congress

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States

As far as I know, the 16th amendment was created in order to settle the confusion over direct and indirect taxes.

Hmmm. Bummer. I guess the founding fathers never had the foresight that the gov't then could become like the land they left from, and tax a person out of existance if they wanted to.

Where does it say anything in your first pargraph that could lead to any confusion? I do not even see the word direct, or indirect, in there.

Iamme · 22nd September 2010, 04:24 PM

Originally Posted by Grizzly Adams

Actually, it was an apportionment issue...

Once again - why any issue? I see nothing in Section 8 saying that the gov't plain and simple just can't tax you if they feel like it.

JoeTheJuggler · 22nd September 2010, 04:28 PM

Originally Posted by Iamme

Hmmm. Bummer. I guess the founding fathers never had the foresight that the gov't then could become like the land they left from, and tax a person out of existance [sic] if they wanted to.

Last I checked, our population is considerably larger than it was in the days of the founding fathers, so I guess you're wrong about taxing people out of existence.

For that matter, the same can be said for "the land they left from". So I think you're arguing something that's not remotely connected to reality here.

The founding fathers revolted against taxation without representation, not about the question of the need for a government to raise revenue through taxation.

Iamme · 22nd September 2010, 04:30 PM

Originally Posted by drkitten

It's been the case since the rise of the nation-state and the theory of "sovereignty" in the 16th and 17th centuries; historians when pressed use 1648 and the Treaty of Westphalia as the establishment of the idea of a collection of "sovereign" nation-states, where national authority was supreme and unfettered within its territories.

The United States is a very unusual country, legally speaking, in that it is not a nation-state, but a collection of "sovereign" ............

Well, the States aren't sovereign enough (at least anymore). Because the Feds can flex their muscle, and in a way, deprive States of allocated money for, say, if they find out a certain percent of the states citzens are not buckling their seat belts. Then there is Arizona and their immigration law that the Feds say they can't have. So much for Arizona thinking they are Sovereign.

hgc · 22nd September 2010, 04:58 PM

Originally Posted by Iamme

Hmmm. Bummer. I guess the founding fathers never had the foresight that the gov't then could become like the land they left from, and tax a person out of existance if they wanted to.

Yeah, that's happening right before our eyes! Or is it? Must be invisible.

drkitten · 23rd September 2010, 07:11 AM

Originally Posted by Iamme

Well, the States aren't sovereign enough (at least anymore).

Well, we tried it the other way and it didn't work.

Oversimplified, the Articles of Confederation created a structure with state sovereignty trumping the Fed. It didn't work, and lasted less than ten years. Version 2.0 explicitly fixed that by making the Fed supreme over the States.

Quote:

Because the Feds can flex their muscle, and in a way, deprive States of allocated money for, say, if they find out a certain percent of the states citzens are not buckling their seat belts.

Yes, I am so bothered by the fact that the States can't tell the Fed that the conditions under which the Fed must allocate Federal money.

Quote:

Then there is Arizona and their immigration law that the Feds say they can't have.

Well, given that the Constitution explicitly says they can't have an immigration law, it's not just "the Feds" who say that. Foreign relations are one of the few powers explicitly forbidden to the States.

Quote:

]So much for Arizona thinking they are Sovereign.

Shrug. So Arizona is dumb. I might think I'm the Emperor of Scotland, too. That doesn't mean it's true, or even rational.

The Central Scrutinizer · 23rd September 2010, 07:14 AM

Originally Posted by Iamme

Is it constitutional for the gov't to be collecting all these other taxes, and even hidden taxes they call "fees"?

Yes.

Will you at least make your next question a bit more challenging?

drkitten · 23rd September 2010, 07:15 AM

Originally Posted by Iamme

Where does it say anything in your first pargraph that could lead to any confusion? I do not even see the word direct, or indirect, in there.

It doesn't; that's in section 9.

"No capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken."

The Central Scrutinizer · 23rd September 2010, 07:17 AM

Originally Posted by Iamme

Hmmm. Bummer. I guess the founding fathers never had the foresight that the gov't then could become like the land they left from, and tax a person out of existance if they wanted to.

Name a single person who has been "taxed out of existance".

19th September 2010, 08:58 AM	#1
Iamme Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Western Wisconsin Posts: 4,622	We have the 16th amendment - but where does it say about property and other taxes? Is it constitutional for the gov't to be collecting all these other taxes, and even hidden taxes they call "fees"?
	__________________ I lost my mind many years ago and it hasn't affected me a bit...a bit..a bit..a bit.

19th September 2010, 02:31 PM	#4
linusrichard Master Poster Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Lansing, Mich. Posts: 2,667	Property taxes? To my knowledge, the federal government doesn't collect them (with the possible exception of DC, which is different).
	__________________ "We are talking about an old ladies genitals after all." - ponderingturtle

19th September 2010, 08:16 PM	#6
Cain Straussian Join Date: May 2002 Location: Los Angeles Posts: 7,001	It's actually highly illegal for the government to collect taxes; last I checked, we don't live Communist Russia. So don't pay. It's not like you can go to jail. If men with guns do show up at your home, then bust out some Wesley Snipes moves.
	__________________ *Arrested Development* is coming back! Michael (to GOB): Get rid of the Seaward. Lucille: I’ll leave when I’m good and ready.

20th September 2010, 12:11 AM	#7
Grizzly Adams Muse Join Date: May 2010 Posts: 993	Originally Posted by AaronMHatch As far as I know, the 16th amendment was created in order to settle the confusion over direct and indirect taxes. Actually, it was an apportionment issue...
Grizzly Adams Muse Join Date: May 2010 Posts: 993

20th September 2010, 08:12 AM	#9
Beerina Sarcastic Conqueror of Notions Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: A floating island above the clouds Posts: 23,835	Originally Posted by drkitten Cities, Counties, and whatnot, have the authority to collect taxes because the State has delegated that authority to them. Is even this always, or historically the case? Long ago villages might just start taxing, yet there was no state "law" saying how this should be done, or even if it could be done? I guess that's more law history though
	__________________ "Great innovations should not be forced [by way of] slender majorities." - Thomas Jefferson The government should nationalize it! Socialized, single-payer video game development and sales *now!* More, cheaper, better games, right? Right?

19th September 2010, 09:03 AM	#2
drkitten Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Wits' End Posts: 21,647	Originally Posted by Iamme Is it constitutional for the gov't to be collecting all these other taxes, and even hidden taxes they call "fees"? Yes.

19th September 2010, 09:06 AM	#3
AaronMHatch Critical Thinker Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 344	The government has the right to collect taxes via this: Section 8 - Powers of Congress The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States ---------- As far as I know, the 16th amendment was created in order to settle the confusion over direct and indirect taxes.

19th September 2010, 04:31 PM	#5
Upchurch Papa Funkosophy Join Date: May 2002 Location: Funky Town (STL, MO) Posts: 23,472	[/thread]

20th September 2010, 04:58 AM	#8
drkitten Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Wits' End Posts: 21,647	Originally Posted by linusrichard Property taxes? To my knowledge, the federal government doesn't collect them (with the possible exception of DC, which is different). Well, if you want the full story, the Fed has the authority to collect taxes because it says so in Article I, but there's some argle-bargle about "direct taxes" in there, which is why the Fed has lots of transaction taxes but few simple give-us-your-money taxes (like property tax). The States have the authority to collect taxes of any type because the States have any power they want as long as it isn't forbidden to them in the Constitution -- and the list of forbidden powers is extremely short. Cities, Counties, and whatnot, have the authority to collect taxes because the State has delegated that authority to them.

20th September 2010, 02:49 PM	#10
Thunder Banned Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Queens Posts: 34,947	yes, taxes are legal.

20th September 2010, 02:56 PM	#11
geni Anti-homeopathy illuminati member Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: UK Posts: 26,639	Originally Posted by Beerina Is even this always, or historically the case? Long ago villages might just start taxing, yet there was no state "law" saying how this should be done, or even if it could be done? I guess that's more law history though Long ago I can't imagaine there were many villages worth taxing.

20th September 2010, 06:34 PM	#12
theprestige Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 8,882	Originally Posted by geni Long ago I can't imagaine there were many villages worth taxing. As long as there's been one dude with a knack for farming and another dude with a knack for cracking skulls, there's been a village worth taxing--though if the two dudes were on friendly terms, they probably called it "sharing".
theprestige Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 8,882

21st September 2010, 08:31 AM	#13
Greediguts Atheist for Jesus Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 643	The IRS has a FAQ re: frivolous tax arguments. You can read it here.

21st September 2010, 08:45 AM	#14
drkitten Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Wits' End Posts: 21,647	Originally Posted by Beerina Is even this always, or historically the case? Long ago villages might just start taxing, yet there was no state "law" saying how this should be done, or even if it could be done? I guess that's more law history though It's been the case since the rise of the nation-state and the theory of "sovereignty" in the 16th and 17th centuries; historians when pressed use 1648 and the Treaty of Westphalia as the establishment of the idea of a collection of "sovereign" nation-states, where national authority was supreme and unfettered within its territories. The United States is a very unusual country, legally speaking, in that it is not a nation-state, but a collection of "sovereign" states that it itself a sovereign state as well. This creates the rather unusual "dual sovereignty" doctrine in the United States. Most countries don't have anything like this; the government of the nation-state (e.g. Parliament, in the case of England or Canada) is sovereign and local governments act through delegated authority at the pleasure and whim of the national authority. Even the UK has single-sovereignty in this sense; Parliament is supreme over Scotland and Northern Ireland as well as England.

21st September 2010, 10:00 AM	#15
TubbaBlubba Knave of the Dudes Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Communist Kingdom of Sweden Posts: 7,477	No, taxes are illegal, don't pay them, Dr. Dino didn't.
	__________________ Disagreement begets progress.

21st September 2010, 10:13 AM	#16
sarge Master Poster Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Fayetteville, NC Posts: 2,444	Long since settled issue. The federal goverment has an absolute authority to collect taxes, including income and property taxes. Questions of constitutionality that are specifically addressed by the court are no longer questions.

21st September 2010, 10:29 AM	#17
geni Anti-homeopathy illuminati member Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: UK Posts: 26,639	Originally Posted by theprestige As long as there's been one dude with a knack for farming and another dude with a knack for cracking skulls, there's been a village worth taxing--though if the two dudes were on friendly terms, they probably called it "sharing". "Rent" seems more likely. In you senario what interest does the cracking skulls dude have in mearly taxing the farmer? Various forms of rent (see fudalism) are a more resonable approach. The problem you have is that while taxes have been dirrectly leveled on serfs the amount you get per serf is so low it's not worthwhile for sub state level entity. Yeomen, skilled traders and some miners who were worth taxing were generaly powerful enough that taxing them required the backing of a state level entity.

22nd September 2010, 04:21 PM	#18
Iamme Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Western Wisconsin Posts: 4,622	Originally Posted by AaronMHatch The government has the right to collect taxes via this: Section 8 - Powers of Congress The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States As far as I know, the 16th amendment was created in order to settle the confusion over direct and indirect taxes. Hmmm. Bummer. I guess the founding fathers never had the foresight that the gov't then could become like the land they left from, and tax a person out of existance if they wanted to. Where does it say anything in your first pargraph that could lead to any confusion? I do not even see the word direct, or indirect, in there.
	__________________ I lost my mind many years ago and it hasn't affected me a bit...a bit..a bit..a bit.

22nd September 2010, 04:24 PM	#19
Iamme Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Western Wisconsin Posts: 4,622	Originally Posted by Grizzly Adams Actually, it was an apportionment issue... Once again - why any issue? I see nothing in Section 8 saying that the gov't plain and simple just can't tax you if they feel like it.
	__________________ I lost my mind many years ago and it hasn't affected me a bit...a bit..a bit..a bit.

22nd September 2010, 04:28 PM	#20
JoeTheJuggler Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: St. Louis Posts: 27,153	Originally Posted by Iamme Hmmm. Bummer. I guess the founding fathers never had the foresight that the gov't then could become like the land they left from, and tax a person out of existance [sic] if they wanted to. Last I checked, our population is considerably larger than it was in the days of the founding fathers, so I guess you're wrong about taxing people out of existence. For that matter, the same can be said for "the land they left from". So I think you're arguing something that's not remotely connected to reality here. The founding fathers revolted against taxation without representation, not about the question of the need for a government to raise revenue through taxation.
	__________________ "That is a very graphic analogy which aids understanding wonderfully while being, strictly speaking, wrong in every possible way." —Ponder Stibbons

22nd September 2010, 04:30 PM	#21
Iamme Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Western Wisconsin Posts: 4,622	Originally Posted by drkitten It's been the case since the rise of the nation-state and the theory of "sovereignty" in the 16th and 17th centuries; historians when pressed use 1648 and the Treaty of Westphalia as the establishment of the idea of a collection of "sovereign" nation-states, where national authority was supreme and unfettered within its territories. The United States is a very unusual country, legally speaking, in that it is not a nation-state, but a collection of "sovereign" ............ Well, the States aren't sovereign enough (at least anymore). Because the Feds can flex their muscle, and in a way, deprive States of allocated money for, say, if they find out a certain percent of the states citzens are not buckling their seat belts. Then there is Arizona and their immigration law that the Feds say they can't have. So much for Arizona thinking they are Sovereign.
	__________________ I lost my mind many years ago and it hasn't affected me a bit...a bit..a bit..a bit.

22nd September 2010, 04:58 PM	#22
hgc Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2002 Posts: 13,125	Originally Posted by Iamme Hmmm. Bummer. I guess the founding fathers never had the foresight that the gov't then could become like the land they left from, and tax a person out of existance if they wanted to. Yeah, that's happening right before our eyes! Or is it? Must be invisible.
	__________________ Bowel-shaking earthquakes of doubt and remorse assail him and wail him with monster truck force. - Cake, The Distance Was there a second singer on the grassy Knowles? - Stephen Colbert

23rd September 2010, 07:11 AM	#23
drkitten Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Wits' End Posts: 21,647	Originally Posted by Iamme Well, the States aren't sovereign enough (at least anymore). Well, we tried it the other way and it didn't work. Oversimplified, the Articles of Confederation created a structure with state sovereignty trumping the Fed. It didn't work, and lasted less than ten years. Version 2.0 explicitly fixed that by making the Fed supreme over the States. Quote: Because the Feds can flex their muscle, and in a way, deprive States of allocated money for, say, if they find out a certain percent of the states citzens are not buckling their seat belts. Yes, I am so bothered by the fact that the States can't tell the Fed that the conditions under which the Fed must allocate Federal money. Quote: Then there is Arizona and their immigration law that the Feds say they can't have. Well, given that the Constitution explicitly says they can't have an immigration law, it's not just "the Feds" who say that. Foreign relations are one of the few powers explicitly forbidden to the States. Quote: ]So much for Arizona thinking they are Sovereign. Shrug. So Arizona is dumb. I might think I'm the Emperor of Scotland, too. That doesn't mean it's true, or even rational.

23rd September 2010, 07:14 AM	#24
The Central Scrutinizer Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: The White Zone Posts: 42,556	Originally Posted by Iamme Is it constitutional for the gov't to be collecting all these other taxes, and even hidden taxes they call "fees"? Yes. Will you at least make your next question a bit more challenging?
	__________________ If I see somebody with a gun on a plane? I'll kill him.

23rd September 2010, 07:15 AM	#25
drkitten Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Wits' End Posts: 21,647	Originally Posted by Iamme Where does it say anything in your first pargraph that could lead to any confusion? I do not even see the word direct, or indirect, in there. It doesn't; that's in section 9. "No capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken."

23rd September 2010, 07:17 AM	#26
The Central Scrutinizer Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: The White Zone Posts: 42,556	Originally Posted by Iamme Hmmm. Bummer. I guess the founding fathers never had the foresight that the gov't then could become like the land they left from, and tax a person out of existance if they wanted to. Name a single person who has been "taxed out of existance".
	__________________ If I see somebody with a gun on a plane? I'll kill him.