Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
blahblahblah
ParticipantOf course, we’d all rather have single-payer system, like, you know, civilized countries… but you’d probably argue that it’s unconstitutional too.
Hahaha you obviously don’t know me very well Eugene. I’ve argued in favor of state-sponsored health care on this board many times. You may now return to your comfortable left-right paradigm…
ParticipantBecause there was a debate about whether an income tax was “uniform” (see the second part of the Constitutional text quoted above).
Exactly, so it doesn’t really grant the power to tax anything. Adding a new tax can even require amending the Constitution. I would argue that instituting a Federal carbon tax should require a Constitutional amendment. How is it apportioned? Is it based on your body size? The length of your commute? The size of your house? The type of your car? Where you live? The 16th amendment allows unapportioned taxes on income, but CO2 output isn’t income, it’s exhaust. Of course there will never be an amendment to make this legal since it would never pass. But that’s no matter, soon there will be a little CRBN field on your paycheck stub next to your MDCR and SSDI. Why bother amending the Constitution when you can just ignore it? That’s what they’ve been doing with wars for more than 50 years.
ParticipantBecause there was a debate about whether an income tax was “uniform” (see the second part of the Constitutional text quoted above).
Exactly, so it doesn’t really grant the power to tax anything. Adding a new tax can even require amending the Constitution. I would argue that instituting a Federal carbon tax should require a Constitutional amendment. How is it apportioned? Is it based on your body size? The length of your commute? The size of your house? The type of your car? Where you live? The 16th amendment allows unapportioned taxes on income, but CO2 output isn’t income, it’s exhaust. Of course there will never be an amendment to make this legal since it would never pass. But that’s no matter, soon there will be a little CRBN field on your paycheck stub next to your MDCR and SSDI. Why bother amending the Constitution when you can just ignore it? That’s what they’ve been doing with wars for more than 50 years.
ParticipantBecause there was a debate about whether an income tax was “uniform” (see the second part of the Constitutional text quoted above).
Exactly, so it doesn’t really grant the power to tax anything. Adding a new tax can even require amending the Constitution. I would argue that instituting a Federal carbon tax should require a Constitutional amendment. How is it apportioned? Is it based on your body size? The length of your commute? The size of your house? The type of your car? Where you live? The 16th amendment allows unapportioned taxes on income, but CO2 output isn’t income, it’s exhaust. Of course there will never be an amendment to make this legal since it would never pass. But that’s no matter, soon there will be a little CRBN field on your paycheck stub next to your MDCR and SSDI. Why bother amending the Constitution when you can just ignore it? That’s what they’ve been doing with wars for more than 50 years.
ParticipantBecause there was a debate about whether an income tax was “uniform” (see the second part of the Constitutional text quoted above).
Exactly, so it doesn’t really grant the power to tax anything. Adding a new tax can even require amending the Constitution. I would argue that instituting a Federal carbon tax should require a Constitutional amendment. How is it apportioned? Is it based on your body size? The length of your commute? The size of your house? The type of your car? Where you live? The 16th amendment allows unapportioned taxes on income, but CO2 output isn’t income, it’s exhaust. Of course there will never be an amendment to make this legal since it would never pass. But that’s no matter, soon there will be a little CRBN field on your paycheck stub next to your MDCR and SSDI. Why bother amending the Constitution when you can just ignore it? That’s what they’ve been doing with wars for more than 50 years.
ParticipantBecause there was a debate about whether an income tax was “uniform” (see the second part of the Constitutional text quoted above).
Exactly, so it doesn’t really grant the power to tax anything. Adding a new tax can even require amending the Constitution. I would argue that instituting a Federal carbon tax should require a Constitutional amendment. How is it apportioned? Is it based on your body size? The length of your commute? The size of your house? The type of your car? Where you live? The 16th amendment allows unapportioned taxes on income, but CO2 output isn’t income, it’s exhaust. Of course there will never be an amendment to make this legal since it would never pass. But that’s no matter, soon there will be a little CRBN field on your paycheck stub next to your MDCR and SSDI. Why bother amending the Constitution when you can just ignore it? That’s what they’ve been doing with wars for more than 50 years.
ParticipantThe Constitution allows taxes for just about anything.
Then why was the 16th amendment necessary?
ParticipantThe Constitution allows taxes for just about anything.
Then why was the 16th amendment necessary?
ParticipantThe Constitution allows taxes for just about anything.
Then why was the 16th amendment necessary?
ParticipantThe Constitution allows taxes for just about anything.
Then why was the 16th amendment necessary?
ParticipantThe Constitution allows taxes for just about anything.
Then why was the 16th amendment necessary?
ParticipantThe video shows a picture of Jesus and a Christian cross when it mentions that natural law is based upon God.
That could definitely be misleading. The concept he was trying to get across was that our rights are natural and “given by God.” For atheists, just say “inherent to all people”. This is an important distinction, because many governments “give” rights to people. If they can give them of course, they can take them away as well. Here in the US, our Constitution recognizes that our rights are inherent. They are not given to us by a man or a government; we have them because we are human beings.
ParticipantThe video shows a picture of Jesus and a Christian cross when it mentions that natural law is based upon God.
That could definitely be misleading. The concept he was trying to get across was that our rights are natural and “given by God.” For atheists, just say “inherent to all people”. This is an important distinction, because many governments “give” rights to people. If they can give them of course, they can take them away as well. Here in the US, our Constitution recognizes that our rights are inherent. They are not given to us by a man or a government; we have them because we are human beings.
ParticipantThe video shows a picture of Jesus and a Christian cross when it mentions that natural law is based upon God.
That could definitely be misleading. The concept he was trying to get across was that our rights are natural and “given by God.” For atheists, just say “inherent to all people”. This is an important distinction, because many governments “give” rights to people. If they can give them of course, they can take them away as well. Here in the US, our Constitution recognizes that our rights are inherent. They are not given to us by a man or a government; we have them because we are human beings.
-
AuthorPosts
