For the first question on this post: (Q:) Can anyone tell me/us what the first Tea Party was about..The Boston Tea Party? (A:) Taxation without representation. Okay then: What if I were to tell you that if we pay the first cent in taxation without the proper repersentation the United States Supreme Court has held that it is the very definition of peonage, or involuntary servitude? Okay now lets go one step further: The same Court has also held that if a person is served a tax for their labor the same peonage and/or involuntary servitude is in effect. Too, the Court has held that a persons labor is their private property and a tax cannot be imposed upon it. But of course we all know this, right? So when we go to work and sell our labor for an agreed upon price there cannot be any form of taxation on this because if it were it would be taxation without representation and a form of involuntary servitude, or in other words, slave labor. But what about the income tax? Well, its fairly simple, the money a person receives for the sell, or trade, of their labor (their private property) is NOT income. AND, if the united states government, or any part of it, levies a tax of any kind on the money you receive from your labor it is taxation without representation because the United States Constitution plainly states that a persons labor is their own private property and a tax cannot be levied on private property unless its done properly and within the bounds of the Constitution. AND, dear patriots, no matter what some bureaucrat or I.R.S. agent might tell you, the 16th Amendment does not give the government the authority to tax the money you receive from an everyday job, unless of course you work for the government. But a plumber, carpenter, bookkeeper, farmer, doctor, or shoe salesman (or any of the like kind) cannot be taxed for thier labor and if they are this is TAXATION WITHOUT REPERSENTATION. So heads up Tea Party, where is Washington getting the money to pay $165,000 each year to our so-called congressmen? These do nothing men and women are stealing your hard earned money right out of your pockets and laughing all the way to the bank, and they are doing this without you even raising the proverbial eyebrow! TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION was the first Tea Party's cry, let it be the same NOW!!! Wake up Patriots, you have the will and the power to stop Washington. Its your money, use it NOW.
Fellow Patriot, thank you for your comment! Needless to say, your comment was well thought out and well put, and mostly correct, except for one flaw. Are you at all familiar with Brady v. U.S., 397 U.S. 742, 748 and what the Supreme Court said about "...knowingly intelligent acts?" You cannot have a contract unless both parties have full disclosure of any and all conditions of the contract. Its easy to say that I must pay a user tax on federal notes and that by using them I am bound by a contract to pay a tax for doing so, but where is the disclosure that I am under the obligation to do so? It doesn't exist and as such there is no contract. I must enter into a contract both knowingly and intelligently, with full disclosure, before a contract has any validity. Now that is the law of contracts under U.C.C. 207. But thanks again for your comment.
Ok, first, you are mostly correct about the Boston Tea Party. But, the issue was Bostonian's HAD local representatives which DID vote to levy taxes for the common good although being under the governorship of Britain. What happened was it was not a matter of taxation of tea - had their represenatives suggested it there would not have been a problem at that point - but rather the Tea Act of 1873 in the British Parliament did not begin with the Boston represenatives. This was a continuation of the same issue which prevailed before and after such as the Whiskey Tax by the U.S. Government which WAS a product of our represenatives.
I think your take in the 16th Amendment(1913) is based upon the reasons the Amendment was added; mainly Pollock vs. Farmers' Loan and Trust(1895).
The numerous USSC decisions which followed dealt with issues of income, assets, and other transactions of 'value' not specifically addressed by the Amendment itself which basic authorizes Congress to levy taxes. 'Apportionment' was one of the first things to be challenged and clarified by the high court.
Income tax reform had a sane voice in Steve Forbes but the problems arise under the conflicts of the 14th and 16th Amendments as it pertains to state incomes tax which is based up line 31 of the federal form. You can see where many states would be compelled to a flat tax apportionment which the high court deedmed unconstitutional. So, the beat goes on.
However, businesses and individuals are taxed at different rates and both have means to lower the payout to the IRS through deductions and claiming of losses.
Yes, I agree individuals are over taxed. Businesses, however, enjoy the lowest tax rates in the major industrial nations and could contribute more.
Comments
I think your take in the 16th Amendment(1913) is based upon the reasons the Amendment was added; mainly Pollock vs. Farmers' Loan and Trust(1895).
The numerous USSC decisions which followed dealt with issues of income, assets, and other transactions of 'value' not specifically addressed by the Amendment itself which basic authorizes Congress to levy taxes. 'Apportionment' was one of the first things to be challenged and clarified by the high court.
Income tax reform had a sane voice in Steve Forbes but the problems arise under the conflicts of the 14th and 16th Amendments as it pertains to state incomes tax which is based up line 31 of the federal form. You can see where many states would be compelled to a flat tax apportionment which the high court deedmed unconstitutional. So, the beat goes on.
However, businesses and individuals are taxed at different rates and both have means to lower the payout to the IRS through deductions and claiming of losses.
Yes, I agree individuals are over taxed. Businesses, however, enjoy the lowest tax rates in the major industrial nations and could contribute more.
Locus