End To The Irs?

[chelsea]

My uncle works for the IRS.

I think people just dont like them because people dont like paying taxes. I dont like paying taxes either, but seriously, they're important for the functioning of our country. They may not be used in the right ways, but without taxes we would collapse.

[Anomaly]

My bro works for the IRS. W/O the IRS, he'd have to get a new job and my mom would make me hire him.

Yeah taxes!
Yeah IRS!

[Socrates]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1394264' date='Sep 27 2007, 03:19 PM']haha, you can teach an "archaic history of american taxation systems" one day... explaining the significance of the date "April 15" in historical media to the generations who will grow up without that burden :

one can dream...

anyway, I think it's a terrible injustice that we have a taxation system that has to be negotiated by people with expensive degrees on the subject. It makes us dependent upon the system and cuts down our ability to have independence and freedom the way the Founding Fathers intended it.[/quote]


[quote name='adt6247' post='1394269' date='Sep 27 2007, 03:27 PM']The federal government could actually have significantly more tax income if it switched to a flat tax model without a refund system, or a consumption tax model, or better yet, abolished all taxes other than tariffs and excise taxes, the IRS would no longer be necessary.[/quote]


[quote name='SarahB' post='1394308' date='Sep 27 2007, 04:14 PM']Actually, the Supreme Court ruled that the 16th Amendment gave the government no new power to tax us, especially on what we made for labor. That's a direct tax, and prohibited by the Constitution.

I'll have to search for that case. I thougth I had it saved on my computer, but I can't find it. I'll look for it. I'll have to look for that Supreme Court case, too. I can't remember the name of it right now.

I'm not against taxes, just unconstitutional ones.[/quote]
I agree with all the above.

[quote name='chelsea' post='1394435' date='Sep 27 2007, 08:19 PM']My uncle works for the IRS.

I think people just dont like them because people dont like paying taxes. I dont like paying taxes either, but seriously, they're important for the functioning of our country. They may not be used in the right ways, but without taxes we would collapse.[/quote]
Government has gotten much too big and taxes have gotten much too high.
A national income tax is unconstitutional and punishes Americans for their work. Our country got by fine for 137 years until the 16th Amendment was ratified in 1913. (A national income tax had previously been ruled unconstitutional).

Of course that was back when America was still the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave, rather than a nation of spineless government-dependent socialists.

Edited September 28, 2007 by Socrates

[SarahB]

The 16th Amdenment says that 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.

Article 1 Section 9 says that no direct tax shall be laid unless it is in porportion to the census or enumeration.

Hence, the 16th Amendment is completly unconstitutional because it allows for what is specifically denied in the 1st Article. I still have to look for the name of the Supreme Court ruling that said that. I'm lazy, I can't help it.

[Aloysius]

An ammendment cannot be deemed "unconstitutional"; an ammendment is, by definition, part of the constitution. The reason they added the 16th Ammendment was because when they had tried to institute a federal income tax previously, the Supreme Court shot it down as unconstitutional. So they were smart the next time, first they changed the constitution with an ammendment, and then they instituted the federal income tax. ergo, the tax is technically constitutional.

The only way an ammendment can be made unconstitutional is if another ammendment passes nullifying that ammendment. Otherwise, it is by defintion "constitutional".

Ron Paul talks about the history of the Income Tax a little bit on the page I posted.

[adt6247]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1394291' date='Sep 27 2007, 05:56 PM']well bottomline, IRS is needed for the enforcement of taxes not paid.

but beyond that, even the models posed adt would require someone to ensure it's done proper and right. even with tariffs etc, it's too simplistic to think, gee all tarifss are such that i get money for goods. it could be good for goods. it could be good for a release of debt. it could be all kinds of things. someone has to look at this to be fair.
i kinda wonder if adt read my initial post.

i know it's complicated, and too bad an ordinary person cna'lttt understand it, but that's life. we don't want to have simplicity at the sake of fairness and other justice.
so we can either not have fairness or justice, or we can have it where everyone has to learn tehse rules, or we can have where gov people tell the people the rules when they need them which is essentially what we do now but more efficient, or we cna do what we do now.

the bottom line. no one likes that it's complicated. and every system starts with the idea of a simple tax. but realities set in and people want thins fair. i recommend the book, taxes in paradise, to illustrate that point.[/quote]
The IRS is an incredibly complicated and large organization. It doesn't deal with tariffs or any form of consumption tax, to the best of my knowledge. If the government were to shrink to the size where only tariffs were necessary, the IRS could be replaced with a very, VERY small organization, not one with its current structure. In this case, all it would do would be cash checks for the fed, and perform audits -- nothing more. Not the huge bureaucracy it is today. In fact, it would be easier to dismantle the IRS and replace it in such a case than to refactor it.

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote name='adt6247' post='1394658' date='Sep 28 2007, 06:01 AM']The IRS is an incredibly complicated and large organization. It doesn't deal with tariffs or any form of consumption tax, to the best of my knowledge. If the government were to shrink to the size where only tariffs were necessary, the IRS could be replaced with a very, VERY small organization, not one with its current structure. In this case, all it would do would be cash checks for the fed, and perform audits -- nothing more. Not the huge bureaucracy it is today. In fact, it would be easier to dismantle the IRS and replace it in such a case than to refactor it.[/quote]

this is true. it'd be smaller. and for the average joe six pack, they woldn't have to worry about anything as not tariffs. so for most it'd be a good thing.


also, i echo al's comments. an amendment is by definition constituitonal. not sure what soc is saying by saying it's not. and not sure what sarah is saying saying it's not. if they provided support other than speculatuion what what they might have heard, as opposed to the clear reading on the amendment and terra's info and such, i might agree.

[Anomaly]

Actually, the vast bulk of what IRS Agents do is watch businesses and business owners to make sure they pay the payroll and corporate taxes. The actual percentage of regualar individuals who get audited is very small and doesn't take up much of their manpower at all. Processing income taxes of individuals is done in bulk, and they maintain a certain amount of people who go after blatant fraud. And of course, tax laws are used to go after criminals, drug dealers, etc. The IRS works intimately with the DEA and ATF.

[SarahB]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1394656' date='Sep 28 2007, 04:06 AM']An ammendment cannot be deemed "unconstitutional"; an ammendment is, by definition, part of the constitution. The reason they added the 16th Ammendment was because when they had tried to institute a federal income tax previously, the Supreme Court shot it down as unconstitutional. So they were smart the next time, first they changed the constitution with an ammendment, and then they instituted the federal income tax. ergo, the tax is technically constitutional.

The only way an ammendment can be made unconstitutional is if another ammendment passes nullifying that ammendment. Otherwise, it is by defintion "constitutional".

Ron Paul talks about the history of the Income Tax a little bit on the page I posted.[/quote]


The Constitution is supposed to be the Supreme Law of the land. If a power was already denied by the founders, then there's no basis for instating it. Just because they managed to pass it doesn't make it any less wrong. Please, the government passes bogus laws all the time. *coughPatrtiotActcough*

Yeah, I know, that's not an amendment to the Constitution. Just an example of how our wonderful "representatives" in Washinton take the Constitution and tell us to shove it where the sun doesn't shine.

[dairygirl4u2c]

you can say a amendment to const shouldn't be constituional as per your opinion. but, saying it is not constitiuonal as per the actual reading of it, (and arguably the justices reading of it) is flawed.

[adt6247]

[quote name='SarahB' post='1394784' date='Sep 28 2007, 01:18 PM']The Constitution is supposed to be the Supreme Law of the land. If a power was already denied by the founders, then there's no basis for instating it. Just because they managed to pass it doesn't make it any less wrong. Please, the government passes bogus laws all the time. *coughPatrtiotActcough*

Yeah, I know, that's not an amendment to the Constitution. Just an example of how our wonderful "representatives" in Washinton take the Constitution and tell us to shove it where the sun doesn't shine.[/quote]
You argued based on constitutionality, not morality. I agree there's something seriously wrong with the US tax code. I think income tax, as a concept, is unfair, as is property tax, and the level of taxation is absurd, and disproportionately difficult on small businesses.

[adt6247]

[quote name='Anomaly' post='1394772' date='Sep 28 2007, 12:48 PM']Actually, the vast bulk of what IRS Agents do is watch businesses and business owners to make sure they pay the payroll and corporate taxes. The actual percentage of regualar individuals who get audited is very small and doesn't take up much of their manpower at all. Processing income taxes of individuals is done in bulk, and they maintain a certain amount of people who go after blatant fraud. And of course, tax laws are used to go after criminals, drug dealers, etc. The IRS works intimately with the DEA and ATF.[/quote]
True, but if we were to switch to a tarrif and/or consumption tax model, there would be no payroll taxes.

[Anomaly]

[quote name='adt6247' post='1394788' date='Sep 28 2007, 01:25 PM']True, but if we were to switch to a tarrif and/or consumption tax model, there would be no payroll taxes.[/quote]
There still would be Corporate taxes. Not all taxes are coming from individual earnings. There still would be a Tax or Revenue Authority that would have to monitor that.

[Aloysius]

The Founding Fathers made the constitution ammendable. Any ammendment that passes becomes the supreme law of the land. If the process was followed to ammend the constitution to remove the Bill of Rights, or completely reshape the government to make it a monarchy, to abolish the congress, to do basically anything, it would become the new supreme law of the land (none of that would ever happen, they made constitutional ammendments hard to get because there's that much at stake, a constitutional ammendment is completely rule-free, it can say anything, that's why it's so serious that a majority of the country agree)

You are correct that anything not mandated by the constitution has no basis in law, unless it is added to the constitution by the ammendment process.

Don't get me wrong, I think that ammendment was a mistake. But it's currently part of the constitution. The constitution is not JUST what the founding fathers wrote, it includes every ammendment made by their successors. An ammendment is not just another peice of legislation, it's an addition to the Constitution of the Republic, it is the Supreme Law of the Land.

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote name='adt6247' post='1394788' date='Sep 28 2007, 11:25 AM']True, but if we were to switch to a tarrif and/or consumption tax model, there would be no payroll taxes.[/quote]

not sure if you are saying it. but if there were consumption model, they'd still be complicated. maybe not as much. but people would still pay with goods instead of moey, masquarade payment as gifts, etc basis would still need calculated etc.

Edited September 30, 2007 by dairygirl4u2c

[Andreas E.]

It's really quite simple and has been hinted here before: the Founding Fathers never intended for the Federal Government to become as bloated as it is today. It had very narrowly defined roles, with the rest of the issues left to the States (education is my favored), hence "Federalism."

Obviously the Federal Government didn't need much revenue to function. Get the Federal Government back to its original size, and there is no need for a Federal Income Tax or the IRS.

[MichaelFilo]

Small government is the way to go; fair tax is not as fair as one would imagine.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1394842' date='Sep 28 2007, 12:43 PM']The Founding Fathers made the constitution ammendable. Any ammendment that passes becomes the supreme law of the land. If the process was followed to ammend the constitution to remove the Bill of Rights, or completely reshape the government to make it a monarchy, to abolish the congress, to do basically anything, it would become the new supreme law of the land (none of that would ever happen, they made constitutional ammendments hard to get because there's that much at stake, a constitutional ammendment is completely rule-free, it can say anything, that's why it's so serious that a majority of the country agree)

You are correct that anything not mandated by the constitution has no basis in law, unless it is added to the constitution by the ammendment process.

Don't get me wrong, I think that ammendment was a mistake. But it's currently part of the constitution. The constitution is not JUST what the founding fathers wrote, it includes every ammendment made by their successors. An ammendment is not just another peice of legislation, it's an addition to the Constitution of the Republic, it is the Supreme Law of the Land.[/quote]
While the idea that the Constitution was designed to be amended into whatever lawmakers want (even if directly contrary to what the Constitution previously stated) may be the orthodoxy among 20th-21st century liberals (the "evolving document" theory), this was certainly not the view held by the Founding Fathers.

The idea of amendments was originally to clarify and address specific points not specified previously in the Constitution, NOT to change the nature of the Constitution itself.

What would even be the point of taking the time to draft a constitution in the first place, if it is merely to be changed on the lawmaker's whim?

Much of the original Constitution is specifically concerned with limiting the powers of the federal government. The 16th Amendment undoes this by granting the federal government greater power.

It seems you've been fed some very liberal interpretations of constitutional law.

I'd recommend reading [url="http://www.amazon.com/Conservative-Constitution-Russell-Kirk/dp/0895265435/ref=sr_1_2/105-2271549-3797208?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1191203198&sr=1-2"][i]The Conservative Constitution[/i][/url], by Russell Kirk.

Edited October 1, 2007 by Socrates

[Aloysius]

the difficulty of the ammendment process is intended to keep it from going against itself.

I know the founding fathers didn't intend for the ammendments to completely change the constitution, but the ammendment process always did have the power to do so. that's why it has to be such a difficult process. any ammendment that passes becomes part of the constitution, there's no law which says that an ammendment must conform to the constitution, ipso facto, ammendments have the power to alter the constitution.

yes, the Founding Fathers didn't want the constitution messed with. ammendments are intended to clarify and deal with things the constitution didn't deal with. BUT, an ammendment cannot be struck down on the grounds that it contradicts the constitution, an ammendment becomes part of the constitution.

when debating whether or not to approve an ammendment, the question should be whether it's in line with the constitution. after it's made the law, the only thing you can do is say that the constitution needs to be ammended again

I believe in a conservative constitution, but I see no evidence that the founding fathers made any law invalidating any ammendment made the contradicts the constitution. It's all there in Artical V of the Constitution:

[quote]The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.[/quote]

there it is- if that process is followed, anything can become the supreme law of the land. should it? no, it shouldn't contradict the constitution, but the ammendment process is powerful enough that it could. it has the power to contradict the constitution, it's the only thing that the legislature can do which can contradict the constitution.

the original claim was that a court had ruled the 16th ammendment to the constitution "unconstitutional". well, that's quite impossible. The legislature could propose an ammendment which nullified that ammendment on the basis that it was unconstitutional, but the judicial branch has no grounds to call an ammendment unconstitutional.