Does Congress Have the Authority to Tax Americans At Different Rates?

The 16th Amendment gave the Federal Government the authority and power to tax every citizen. Here’s the wording of the Amendment:

“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.”

Please note that there is no provision in this amendment that Congress is given the right to unequally apply this power. In looking over all the Constitution’s amendments, I don’t see an unequal distribution of either a freedom or limitation.

Equality under the law requires that as each of us stands before the courts or the Constitution, no one should be treated in an unequal way. The law applies to every citizen equally, except, it seems, when it comes to apply the 16th Amendment.

Does the First Amendment parcel out its freedoms in percentages? Doesn’t every person have the same right to speak, write, and assemble? Rich people and poor people have the same percentage of these rights — 100 percent. The same is true of religion. In constitutional terms, all religions are to be treated equally.

The same is true of the Second Amendment. Everybody has a right to “keep and bear arms” at the same rate. Rich people and poor people have a right to purchase as many guns as they want. Because the rich can afford more guns does not mean that they have to pay more for those guns.

The quartering of troops is similarly equal in the distribution that “No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.” No one could argue that because rich people have larger houses that they should be required to open their house to soldiers.

The same is true about the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, and Eighth Amendments. Read them over and try to apply the percentage differences to them like Congress and the President do with the 16th Amendment.

The 8th Amendment might apply in the case of increased percentages in taxation because the practice could be considered to be “cruel and unusual punishment.” Liberals regard taxation at ever higher rates as punitive. High taxes are designed to punish the rich. Sen. Rand Paul notes the law of diminishing returns on raising taxes. Taxation is not about increased revenue:

“You may not get any more revenue. You may not get any more economic growth. But you can say, ‘I stuck it to the rich people.’”

A progressive income tax is “cruel and unusual punishment.”

The 14th Amendment could also apply. No State “shall . . . deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” “Equal protection.” Our government is not permitted to treat people in an unequal manner. In Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), Justice John Marshall Harlan argued the following in his “Great Dissent”:

“[I]n view of the Constitution, in the eye of the law, there is in this country no superior, dominant, ruling class of citizens. There is no caste here. Our Constitution is color-blind, and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens. In respect of civil rights, all citizens are equal before the law. The humblest is the peer of the most powerful.”

The rich are considered a “class” in American politics. We speak of “class warfare” on a regular basis. Why are the rich classes treated unequally when it comes to legislative law? The taxation of income at unequal levels deprives people of liberty and property.

All we need now is some lawyer or group of lawyers to make this point in the courts. We need to have the same fortitude as those who have worked for decades to overturn capital punishment.








Gary is a graduate of Western Michigan University (1973) and earned his M.Div. at Reformed Theological Seminary in 1979. He is the author of countless essays, news articles, and more than 27 book titles.

Posted in Constitution, First Amendment, Morality, Politics, Second Amendment, Taxes Tagged with: ,
  • fliteking

    “Does Congress Have the Authority to Tax Americans At Different Rates?”
    You would think not, but this is how the liberals buy votes, undercut the family and keep the liberal agenda moving forward.

    He11, it makes sense to give thousands of dollars yearly to those who choose not to provide a good living for their families, right? I mean, they need to buy lots of useless Chinese stuff , big screen TV’s, Cell Plans for cousin Freddie, street drugs, fancy clothes etc right? Right?

    • Ebnas1

      RIGHT!

    • http://www.facebook.com/john.giorgi.7 John Giorgi

      How do you learn a lot in 1 hour? By listening to this man and please do spread it around! This doesn’t tell all, but it sums up why in part we have such a mess. It is a little over 1 hour so please watch when you have time. Good post too.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=8fQoGMtE0EY&feature=endscreen

  • http://www.facebook.com/gaines.bruce Gaines Bruce

    When the income tax was adopted, it was to only applies to rich people (above $10,000 icome) at a rate of 2%. That was in 1914. And that was the way they got most people to vote for the amendment. So it may be a hard case after all this time.

    • Ron Obvious

      A perfect example of “Giving them an inch and them taking 10 miles!” Any time congress and the president tell you that it only affects one class or another, and you believe them, YOU are the FOOL!

  • TheSunDidIt

    Sounds like ground for ANY middle-class American to bring Federal suit to protest the unjust distribution of “tax rates”. I, at any level of income, get a pay raise and LOOSE money because it throws me into a “new tax rate”. That is unfair and unjust and punishes me for success. Which is what the prog want but, I really don’t care what they want. God will judge them soon enough.

    • TIM

      Except that the courts will say you have “no standing” before the court. This comes up whenever the courts are afraid to let the subject become public. This has happened many times with the healthcare law, as well as lawsuits over Obama’s citizenship.

  • JohnGalt

    Flat RATES would be a step in the right direction.

    BETTER still would be a flat tax dollar AMOUNT on all Americans.
    What has one’s income got to do with the one’s liability in supporting the government, anyway?

    Because a person earns more than you, by what right do you have to put your hand in his pocket, LITERALLY at the point of a government gun?

    • Shears_of_Atropos

      Historically, what you describe is closer to that the Constitution’s original wording with respect to taxation…… a head tax! Look it up!

      • DRLJR

        A head tax is a direct violation of Article 1 Section 9 Paragraph 4.

        • Shears_of_Atropos

          Please quote your reference, that shows the the original Constitution did not limit taxation of citizens to a “head tax”. Then you might be believable.

        • DRLJR

          Aren’t you capable of reading the US Constitution for yourself?

    • Miss Zagros Sadjadi

      We can certainly do that but what about those who have no income or extremely little income. We would have to turn around and give them money just so they could pay the tax anyway. That is, unless we want to bring back debtor’s prisons….

      Better NOT to tax individuals at all but instead pay taxes based on consumption (by the way, that will give the liberals what they want — more taxes paid by the rich because they buy more).

    • Mike B

      no income taxes at all rather we have state sales taxes. Then the state supports the fed.

      • Carol

        I like that one much better because then the states will get their leverage back and tell the feds what to do instead of the other way around. But you know the feds will kick up such a stink and demand blood..

    • butterflylady38

      have said this all along..a flat tax..even the welfare would have to pitch in for some of the goodies they buy! enough is enough…

    • frank907

      Actually, the very best would be to recind all tax code and replace with a national retail sales tax only. That way we can see on our register receipt what we are actually paying. The system would be self adjusting. Exempt food and necessities. The rich buy more so they pay more. The poor buy little so they pay little. Everyone pays and congress sets the rate(same rate for everyone). If they set it too high, they get canned at the next election. If we all have skin in the game we are more likely to pay attention.

  • Ron

    This needs forwarding to conservatives in the House, and to Fox, i.e. Hannity, O’Reilly, also Beck.

  • middleclassmama

    I have always thought this. It drives me crazy to hear the “president” talk about fairness in taxation when what he insists upon is flagrantly unfair. This is not because I’m in the top income group; I never have been. This is because it is positively unjust to insist the other guys pick up the tab, especially while half of the group gets a free ride. America is supposed to be the shining city on a hill. The whole steeply progressive tax rate system is unjust, inappropriate, and only seems normal because we have gotten used to it. It’s wrong. People with less income pay less because they earn less, but a flat tax would still yield more revenue for the government coming from the high earners. The spending should eventually be adjusted to live with the means of the federal government, not to insist on governmental seizure of private citizens’ property just because they can do it.

    • sparky

      the only fairnees obama and the dumbacrat asses care about is too make sure they get as much money in there pocket as can be. then see that the USA goes too hell.

      • Kitten

        Sparky if you are middle class you are the dumb one. You have been paying more taxes than MILLIONAIRE’S. How do you think they got two be Millionaire’s to start with?????? If you fell so sorry for them just give them your money, I’m sure they will take it. DUMB YOU!!!!!!!!!

        • Jack

          Kitten,
          wen yu git yur taks retorn invst inn a spellcheck.

        • JohnGalt

          Kitten: What is this thing called “taxes” you speak of?

        • bimota_rider98

          Hey jack, Kitty also needs a reality check. She has fallen for the line that millionaires (no possessive apostrophe) pay 15% taxes. Hey Kitty, millionaires pay 38% then if they make more money using the money they have already earned and payed taxes on the get to pay 15% more. let’s see….that means if the use money to make money they pay 53% on thier earnings……..me-ouch

        • IamNumberSix

          Umm,yeah, Kitten maybe clean out the litter box of crap people have sold you and get a reality check. Let’s use Mr. Romney as an example. He is rich by anyone’s standards. He paid a lesser PERCENTAGE of his investment income than I paid on my income. He paid 14%. But in terms of money, he paid 2,800,000 in taxes. Regardless of percentages, he paid substantially more money than I did. Just about all rich people pay more than I do.The top 10% pay just about all the taxes.

    • Noni77

      ALL should pay the same percent, no loopholes, no subsidies. And if you do NOT pay taxes? You do NOT VOTE.

      • smilee

        Concentrate the power in the haves and let them make the have nots their slaves, that is not what the Constitution is about but many times in our history and to some degree today that is the case and wrong.

        • frank907

          Let’s have a look at the have nots. They often have substantial incomes. They are like the fed. They have a spending problem, not a revenue problem. It is what they choose to spend their money on. Alcohol, nicotine and sometimes drugs. There are indeed those who are poor by no real fault of their own, but there are also the poor who make unwise choices.

        • smilee

          The poverty line used to be just that and today the poverty line is 400% of the poverty line, the formula’s for getting welfare does not allow for the things you cite and fraud is about 3% so you are talking about them and punishing the 97% truly in poverty and most employed but at wages that do not cover half of the basics. Why not put a toe in the butts of their employers whom are laughing all the way to bank. At least you acknowledge some are actually poor and most make good decisions under deplorable conditions of no real fault of their own.

      • Mike B

        You should get an additional vote for every $1000 you pay in taxes

      • IamNumberSix

        Same Percent? Why? Do rich people use more government that poor people? Everyone should pay the same thing if they are citizens. It is the cost of government and it should be equal, not an equal percentage. As for those not paying, NO REPRESENTATION WITHOUT TAXATION.

    • http://wahrheitmacher.blogspot.com/ Most Rev. Gregori

      middleclassmama; did you know that prior to December 23, 1913, there was federal income tax? The federal government raised all of the money it needed through import and export taxes and the sale of war materials. Also, while we were still on the gold standard, the government was forced to live within its means. We MUST DEMAND an end to all of the unconstitutional spending and if the government refuses to listen to us, then we MUST use whatever drastic measures at our disposal to force them to listen.

      • bimota_rider98

        Greg, great idea! How about we put an end to “unconstitutional” presidents as well. (c;

    • smilee

      Those whose tax rates that went up pay less on much of their income as it is not wages and most only have wages and limited other while the rich qualify for tax shelters. So they pay on less of their income as the tax rate is only applied to the taxable income and not the adjusted gross income. Romney only paid about 14% or less than half of most others and as none of it was wages no medicare or SS Taxes had to be paid by him either so there is a lot of unfairness when you look at the whole picture not just one rate so as a equal portion the rich pay less and still will.

      • DRLJR

        This is why people are able to be deceived. Romney and people such as Warren Buffet pays the same rates as everyone else on their WAGES (i.e. Salary) they earns. On their investments, like everyone else who has investments, they pay a different tax with a different rate. All are reported on the 1040 forms. But in order to create the appearance of inequity the Progressives always talk about the combined income and the effective rate people pay on the aggregate income. This is how the class warfare rhetoric works to deceive people.

        Take a program such a Turbo Tax, Microsoft’s tax program or one of numerous other tax programs out there, and create different income and earnings. Create a W-2 and 1040 income tax set-up where you have different wages and capital gains (where most of Romney and rich get their income) and look at the different rate generations you get. This will help you understand how the class warfare rhetoric deception works.

      • Kitten

        You are so right Smilee !

      • IamNumberSix

        14% of investment income for Romney was 2 MILLION, 8 HUNDRED-THOUSAND dollars. If you paid that much, you would not be smilee, you would be frownee. Regardless of the PERCENTAGE he paid, by any standard he paid a heck of a lot more than you. All the rich pay a lot more than you and pay most of the taxes. That’s probably not fair enough for you either.

        • smilee

          Are you also saying if it was sales tax and you where this rich you could pay half the rate of sales tax, for example you and I pay say 6% and he would only have to pay only 3% because just because he is rich. This is the same thing and you seem to think this is fair. Of course the rich are going to pay more in dollars but in proportionality the amount it is much less and that means he got a real big bargain I guess when you see a large amount of dollars you go google eyed and your brain shuts down..

  • drofmanythings

    What about protection from unreasonable “search and seizure” from one’s personal effects under the 4th Amendment? Isn’t taking 40% oof one’s accumulated weath at death SEIZURE? Frankly, I believe the death tax isn’t a tax at all…it’s theft!

    • draeh2020

      Amen brother, I am with you on death theft!!

    • HowardLast

      John & drofmany, you got it right. We are all created equal so why should our citizens pay different amounts to big brother? The other thing that has to be eliminated is income tax withholding. It was put in place by Joe Stalin’s best friend FDR to pay for WW-II. Everyone will have to write a check on April 15. And no more the great unwashed saying, I don’t pay taxes, I get money back.

      • Broke

        They would just have to take an iou from me.

      • TIM

        Withholding makes sure you cannot rebel by not paying taxes, and allows the Government interest free loans on your overpayments.

        • monchan

          Everyone claims 10 dependents, just like the illegals do. Then, the federal gubmint would be forced to cut spending or at least forced to pass budgets before levying taxes.

        • Mikey

          That’s actually not a bad idea. But, it would be better to find legal means to start showing the government and Democrats that this money grab isn’t going to continue. That means rein in your personal spending and if you’re a job creator, don’t hire more people. Time to stick it to the government.

        • Jeff

          If you are a “job creator’, how do you not “hire more people”? That’s sounds like a contradiction in terms.

        • CheeseandRice

          There is nothing IL-legal about declaring 9 “dependents” on your W-4. Many high income do just that.
          There are two kinds of taxpayers…informed and un-informed. The more posts I read the more I learn that most of you are terribly UN-informed.

        • DRLJR

          The poster was making a point that 9 dependents on the W-4 would not flag a review by the IRS of dependents but that 10 or more would.

        • Buck

          Actually you want to claim only 9 , this way the IRS is not notified. If you claim 10 on W2 or with holding the IRS is notified immediately. Been there & 9 works but not 10!

      • butterflylady38

        I have a suggestion…everyone hold their payments for 6 weeks and see what becomes of that..they can’t put us all in jail! It is time we stand up and scream our head off..being our senators and congressman are noit listening to us.
        This government is hog wash…all for stuffing their own pockets first, and not worring about us…the people the talkted into putting them in power..

        • Jeff

          butterlady,

          I could hardly write this, for laughing so hard. What would we all scream? Rape? Think about it; the government would only get richer, while they levy penalties and interests on the taxes due. Then their laughter would be louder than our screams. But what you are really suggesting is anarchy. I don’t think that would play very well. People love their couches and Monday night football, and the latest silly sitcoms and dramas a little too much.

        • Ruggedlark

          Basically, what you are saying is, too many people are watching Stupid Vision?

          Esp. the reality shows. Nothing real there. I’m having a good time, obviously.

        • Jeffrey Liggens

          You read me right.

        • Ruggedlark

          For the record, I’m at the point that anarchy sounds good. And, if that isn’t sad, I don’t know what is.

        • Jeff

          LOL!

        • curtis

          some one put them in there. . how do we get them out?????.

    • smilee

      That is 40% on the monies greater than the deductible and there is zero tax on the deductable amount I think it only applies to about 1% of the population

      • Progressive Republican

        Less than that actually.

    • Carol

      Sure , they steal. They came up with a social security system to supposedly help Americans and stole from that too and as far as I know have never paid it back. Everything they are coming up with to help us will only turn into another avenue to get more money for spending. Watch the health care. You will get less and they will skim off more and more for simple red tape and tons of extra government.

      • DRLJR

        And keep in mind, from what I have read, every time the Social Security fund has been raided it was done by Democrats in power.

        • Carol

          now I know I heard the dems saying that republicans were raiding it too. And Im pretty sure I heard one republican on Cspan admit it simply because he was a tea party candidate and sickened by all this corruption. Its got to be beyond frustrating to be in the middle of a filthy room and not be able to do one thing to clean it up because all those kids just keep throwing more food on the floor. Basically what we have in Washington, and both sides are refusing to stop. They just stand there screaming…….Johnnys looking at me…..you get the picture.

        • DRLJR

          As I said – based upon what I read – the Social Security fund was raided when the Democrats controlled Congress. Each time the fund was pried open and used for things it was not originally intended the Democrats were in control of Congress and the Presidency. This includes making it mandatory, taking money out of it, etc. I am not excusing Republicans for going along with the Democrats raiding.

          And remember, the Democrats (i.e. Progressives, Socialist, etc) lie all the time. They follow “Rules for Radicals” fairly well. Just look at Pelosi and Reid. And Republican Progressives are just as bad.

        • hollygreen9

          The social security fund, as originally written, was that the funds were NOT to be used for any other purpose (it was federal law at the time). Look at us now!!! All of the IOU’s should be called in by the American public, and demanding that the thieves be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. However, we now have an Obama lackie as the attorney general. He, along with all of his other czars, as as guilty as the others of generational theft!!

        • DRLJR

          I know that was the original law. But this comes from the people choosing Socialist and Marxist and not replacing them.

        • Jeff

          That is spin from the right, that continues to blind you from what really happened. Never forget how Bush drug our nation into his bogus “war on terror”, with the surplus he was handed to by Clinton. As a republican at the time, I voted for Bush the first time around; but shortly thereafter had buyer’s remorse. And yes, he did steal the election from Al Gore by the way. He should never had been president. We would never had invaded Iraq on trumped up charges; and then later, Bush had to admit “the intel out of about Saddam Hussein trying to buy yellow cake from Niger was false”. He knew it was a lie when he declared war. NEVER FORGET THIS. Also under his watch was the bogus inflation of home prices, which would later collapse, once the truth was revealed how lenders, ratings agencies, and bonds and securities sellers colluded together to defraud investors. Especially institutional investors; those entrusted with managing our pensions. You have no idea how much people loss during “the Bush era of politics”. But you keep pointing the finger at Democrats? Although none were innocent, never forget the Bush era. I won’t.

        • DRLJR

          You really should go back and look at the real facts and not the
          Socialist media spin. The housing crisis was created by Bill Clinton by
          the distortion of the Community Reinvestment Act and forcing of banks
          to made bad and riskly loans. Then Fannie and Freddie created bonds
          from the risky mortgages and mislabel them as quality bonds. It all
          came to fruition under Bush-43. Bush-43 actually tried to stop it but 4
          powerful Democrats – Schumer, Dodd, Franks and Sanders (A Socialist in
          name) – managed to stop him. This housing price spiral was a result of
          Bill Clinton’s actions not Bush-43.

          Congress was under the
          NOMINAL control of the Republicans during the first 6 years of Bush-43′s
          Presidency, which is why we are still dealing with the constant tax
          rate expiration problem today and a host of other domestic problems
          created by Progressives and the Left. The Democrats forced the
          expiration rate into the bill.

          Bush-43 ended the Iraq war. It
          started when Iraq invaded Kuwait in the 1990s. The war did not end
          until Hussein was deposed. When it appeared Iraq would get a stable
          Democracy the Islamic started creating problems. That includes Iran,
          Al-Quada and the other Islamic front groups and countries. By
          comparison the Korean war is in its 63rd year or so. That war is in a
          cease-fire – it is not over. The Iraq war was in the same state until
          Bush-43 ended it.

          When the Democrats took real control of
          Congress in the 2006/2007 they accelerated the real problems we have
          been dealing with ever since. Bush-43 could only try to mitigated some
          of the damage. Mr Obama, the Democrats and other Progressives (of both
          major Parties) continue to create the problem. In fact I believe based
          upon history we are facing another Great Depression since Mr Obama and
          the Progressives are doing the same things Hoover and FDR did that
          created the Great Depression.

          Bush-43 did not steal the election.
          He won it. If you actually look at what happened Gore tried to rig
          the count in violation of the law. Bush won EVERY recount. Gore wanted
          to only recount Democratic leaning precincts in violation of the law.
          The law requires a recount to recount ALL precincts and ALL votes.
          Gore’s campaign did not want to spend the millions of dollars required
          or did not have it. Thus Gore finally admitted he lost the election.

          The
          “surplus” was created by Newt Gingrich, when the Republicans had some
          backbone, and Clinton was dragged kicking and screaming to the very idea
          of a balanced budget. If you remember the speeches of Clinton he
          talked about doing it in 5, 7, 14, years etc. And there really never
          was a balanced budget – the over spending was brought down. And under
          the Democrats it has spiraled totally out of control.

          As for the
          Yellow Cake uranium you should look at the information that has been
          revealed. The Nigerian Government told the British who were reported to
          have told the US. But that was not the reason Buish-43 ended the Iraq
          war. It was Hussein’s constant violations of the cease-fire agreement.

          Facts
          are inconvenient things to people who try to spin. You should look
          beyond the Progressive and Leftist media spin to the actual facts. You
          might be surprised at what you learn about the world.

        • Jeffrey Liggens

          First off, you are confusing a number of the issues you refer to. Example: You have confused “Operation Desert Storm” which ended in 1993, with “Operation Iraqi Freedom”, which began in 2003, and ended December 15, 2011; 2 years after 9-11 and 10 years after Desert Storm had ended. You have combined two different military operations, that are ten years apart, into one, to make your argument. This is error number one. Error number 2: Regardless of what you might think of Micheal Moore, he did an outstanding job of presenting the facts surrounding the Gore vs. Bush for president. See the DVD “Sicko”. After seeing that part of the video, regardless of what your party affiliation is, you will not dispute the facts he lays out, surrounding that event. Error number three in your argument: the whole 9-11 incident was clearly an inside job, once you examine the facts. The media published lie after lie about what happened. Evidence from showing the planes that hit both towers of the World Trade Center COULD NOT HAVE BROUGHT THOSE TOWERS DOWN, but witness’ testimony and expert analyses both testified that explosives strategically planted on the buildings were involved. To the so-called plane crashing into the Pentagon. THERE HAVE NEVER BEEN EVIDENCE PROVING A PLANE HIT THE PENTAGON. But once again, evidence that explosives did the damage has come to light. Read “The Terror Conspiracy” by Jim Marrs and get a clue ab out what happened there. Not even you would dispute the facts he presents in his book about the “official story” (which consisted of a pack of lies) published about 9-11. So far, everything you have said, sounds like it came from the media you think I get my facts from, that you obviously listen to. Your assumptions are keeping you in the dark about the things you think you know and understand. Try reading my references, and see if you think and feel the same way about these issues.

        • DRLJR

          Nothing you stated is relevant and taking anything Michael Moore does as fact shows your lack of knowledge. Michael Moore has been caught distorting the truth so often it stupid to quote him on anything. Look at the facts of the 2000 election. Gore lost EVERY recount and then tried to rig a recount. Gore lost and didn’t want to admit it. And that included counting invalid ballots.

          My point on Iraq is that the war Hussein started did not end after Operation Desert Storm and what I stated is accurate. A cease fire does not end a war. And by your logic the Korean War ended in 1953.

          And I know all about the conspiracy theories about the Towers and the Pentagon. I also happened to see the 2nd Plane hit the towers. I was there and saw it. I watched the 2nd plane go into the tower. Learn what fire does in a confined space. Start with how blast furnaces work. Then you can understand why the towers came down.

        • Jeff

          Well DRLJR,
          I really cannot help you. I tried to shed a little light, and point you in the right direction, but you prefer ignorance. I gave you valid and accurate references, you so far refuse to look at. You slam Michael Moore the messenger, but have yet to refute his message, full of damning evidence. Instead, your response is to take pot shots at me. So I will leave you to your own devices. Insanity; it’s over rated.

        • DRLJR

          Your messenger is known liar and propagandist. I look at the facts and look beyond the common claims. That is one reason I know that the housing crisis, for instance, did not start under Bush-43 but was the result of the actions of Bill Clinton and his administration. Forcing banks to make loan to unqualified people only set-up a system that will fail. All you are trying to do is push the standard Progressive lies. Real facts will trump your claims all the time.

        • hg

          Then why did Gore concede? That’s what ended the whole thing, Gore had clearly won the popular vote.

        • DRLJR

          Because Gore lost the election. Gore lost every recount in Florida and when the US Supreme Court told him another recount had to follow the existing law he finally conceded. He wanted to only recount the Democratic leaning precincts (due to cost I believe). The law required any recounts to be a full recount and the recount’s cost had to be covered by the requester. Florida law allows for 3 recounts at the public cost when the race is as close as it was. Any recount after those 3 recounts have to be paid for recount requester.

          Remember, the President is not elected by the popular vote. Take the time to read Article 2 and Amendment 12 of the US Constitution. If I remember correctly a President has been elected by a majority of the elector college while losing the popular vote 3 or 4 times.

        • Ruggedlark

          Michael Moore is a propagandist. And, I’m being nice, because I have many more (moore) deeper feelings about that person.

          If you don’t think our country was under attack on 9/11, in my estimation, you are delusional. When I saw the 2nd plane hit, and this was as it was happening, I said this is WW3. It was unbelievable. But, it happened. And people on the other side of the world, cheered.

          What transpired that day, was horrific.

        • DRLJR

          And if Joseph Goebbels was alive Michael Moore would be working for him.

        • Ruggedlark

          You are absolutely correct in that assumption/assertion…

        • Jeff

          I did not say we weren’t under attack. I said it was an inside job. We were attacked by our own. Many who have seen the evidence say it was by our own government. For example; 19 of the so-called high-jackers were Saudi nationals. Wait a minute. Isn’t Saudi Arabia our allies? I did not say the World Trade Center was not hit by planes. Heck, the whole international world saw that on replay. I said the Pentagon was not hit by a plane. The witnesses, whom were told to lie about what they saw, and the evidence says the Pentagon was not hit by a plane; but two bombs went off. That came from people who were inside the building and injured by the blast, as well as those present outside within eye and earshot of the event. I don’t care what you call Michael Moore. Watch the video I mentioned earlier, and refute the evidence supporting what he brings forth. Name calling means nothing to me. Prove him wrong; debunk his evidence. Cite a reference that PROVES what he is saying is wrong. Otherwise, you’re just spewing empty and meaningless rhetoric.

        • Ruggedlark

          It was not an inside job.

          I did not call you a name. I said you were delusional. There is a difference.

          And, no. I care not to watch MM’s propaganda, I’ve read enough of what he’s said, thank you. Seen enough of him in videos and news shows. I will not support what he spins as the truth.

        • Progressive Republican

          Facts are indeed inconvenient things to people who try to spin. You must be dizzy as hell. Not one thing you wrote is true.

        • DRLJR

          Actually every word is accurate. It just challenges your perceptions.

        • Progressive Republican

          The words are, indeed, accurate. It’s the order in which you put them that stretches credulity. Since all you can do is lie like that, we’re done.

        • DRLJR

          For those who take the time to actually look at the real facts know the information is accurate. Just because you can not accept the facts does not make them lies. Standard response one can expect from a Progressive when challenged with facts.

        • hg

          By the way, you are correct about the yellow cake, the British did tell the US about it, Except that subsequently, but before the war, US intelligence (CIA) found out it wasn’t true. They told the WHite House, which buried the report. When Bush reported the whole yellow cake thing, he KNEW it was a lie.

        • hg

          I don’t know herer to begin with this post! I don’t tgink there is a single correct thing in it! Suffice to say, just for one, Gore didn’t try to rig the election. The recount was still going, his advisers told him to keep fighting, but for the good of the country, Gore conceeded!

        • DRLJR

          Trying to change the rules mid-stream is trying to rig the election. Gore tried to only do a partial recount instead of the full recount required by law by only counting Democratic leaning precincts. He lost the election in Florida and thus the Presidency.

        • Jeff

          Your analogy is hilarious, but accurate.

        • Jeff

          Not really. They’re all guilty. None are without spot, blemish, or wrinkle.

        • http://www.facebook.com/healthologist Leslie McCreary

          I believe they’re called Republicrats, or is it Demopubs?

        • Jeff

          That’s funny.

        • Bubba

          YOU ARE 100% CORRECT

    • Mikey

      There is absolutely NO reason for the estate tax other than for Democrats to have another money grab. They figure if you’re dead, you can’t put up much of a fight. Estate tax should be abolished on all.

      • http://www.facebook.com/grant.halverson.1 Grant Halverson

        It’s a TAX on money that has already been TAXED just because you died. WOW, isn’t this warm and fuzzy like the socialist communists PRETEND to be? They gain power by lies and by emotion. KarenWI

      • Bubba

        I agree! You may have a chance in court as double taxation. The owner has paid tax on all the money, property tax for the full time they owned it, and it’s not income to you, it’s a transfer based on the will and legal documents. A lawyer would have to answer this one for me. thanks.

        • hg

          Bubba, I am a lawyer and I can tell you that under the definition of income in the tax code (income which comes from any source whatsoever) inheriting money from a will is in fact income. Also, virtually all the money taxed under the estate tax is not double taxed, since it is passive income, not earned income. This is true primarily because the estate tax doesn’t kick in on any estate unless it is over five milllion dollars. Even then the only portion of the estate taxed is the portion over five million, and it also doesn’t effect a spouse. For a marrried couple it is ten million. There are a LOT of other exemptions as well. The purpose of the estate tax is to prevent too much money from being concentrated in one person’s hands (especialy since by definition, that person did not earn the money). As Winston Churchill said the estate tax prevents the creation of an entire class of idle rich.

    • frank907

      You are entirely correct. Since the subject is taxation, I’d like to point out that it is a monumental scam. Using Candidate Cain’s 9-9-9 plan to illustrate. 9% personal income tax, you pay. 9% sales tax, you pay. 9% coporate tax, you pay. Corporations don’t pay taxes. They pay operating expenses which is what taxes are to them. They don’t have a magic money barrel for taxes. They pass those taxes on to us, the comsumers of their service or product. Take any item, every tax from raw material to retailer is added to the price and we pay them all when we buy the product. I suspect that between 65% and 75% is our actual tax load.
      They get away with it because the majority of voters are way beyond stupid.

      Additionally, congress is always looking for more revenue to waste. Look up the 10% tax surcharge of boats over 30 feet. They destroyed the industry in the US.

    • hg

      No, actually it’s good public policy. The estate tax serves a vital purpose.It prevents the concentration of vast wealth in very few hands. As Winston Churchill (a huge proponent of teh estate tax) said the estate tax is “a certain corrective against the development of a race of the idle rich”. Additionally it is not a double tax as almost all ghe income taxed is passive, not earned income. The levels of estates taxed are huge, five million for an individual and ten million for a couple. That means a couple can pass on ten million dollars before the tax kicks in and only the amounts OVER TEN MILLION arer taxed. In the fifties, the time of the greatest shared propserity in the history of the US, the estate tax was 99%.

      • drofmanythings

        Good policy to confiscate the wealth from someone’s labor and redistribute it to benefit those who accumulate nothing, or at least nothing substantial? There are a few idle rich, but most at the top invest and spend the money, which is far better than giving it to a greedy government that will waste a higher percentage than the most idle rich investor. Social and economic status has always been fluid in our country, people going up and down without the burden of a deeath tax. Your fact about the 99% rate is incorrect. I have read the history of the death tax and at no point was that true. Finallly, most weath is earned by someone. If passive earning includes capital gains taxation, it is indeed earned at some earlier point and taxed, and earnings on investment are also taxed. The “rich” in our country pay disproportionately more than any nation on earth, except France, and that may be a temporary situation. In the “fiscal cliff” bill that nobody in the Congress read before passing it three minutes after it was posted on the Internet, at midnight on New Years Eve, there were provisions to expand the earned income credit payments. This assures that even fewer citizens will pay income tax, increasing the burden again on the higher brackets and the dead with estates. Frenzied egailtarianism was the cause of millions of deaths in the name of Communism, and it could become violent here, too, if the economy collapses under the burden of fantastic debt. It could happen…

  • http://www.facebook.com/gregbeaty Greg T Beaty

    It is time someone challenges this in court.

    • Ron Obvious

      Who do you think sits on the bench? Politicians! They call themselves “Judges” but they are just as political as any legislature out there! They certainly won’t find in the favor of the constitution!

      • smilee

        People who do not get their way say this lie repeatedly

        • Ron Obvious

          If you don’t believe the judges are politician, you are delusional! It has nothing to do with getting “my way”. I and many other would love the Judges to do what they are constitutional obligated to do, and NOTHING MORE! There are few if any who actually judicate a case based on the Constitutionality of the law in quesiton, which is really the whole purpose of the Supreme court, it isn’t about the other junk that they hear!

        • smilee

          That is just your opinion as most of the time in the federal system anyway (lifetime appointments so they answer to no political powers) get it right but like I said if it is not what you want you say It unconstitutional even when it is constitutional and you say it isn’t because you want the judges to do it your way and not by the Constitution. You see you do not understand the Constitution as to what it is and how it works

        • JohnGalt

          “You see you do not understand the Constitution as to what it is and how it works”

          ####

          Yes he does.

          At its most fundamental and important level, the Constitution provides a very limited series of proscribed powers of the Federal government. That is, if it is not specifically elucidated in that document, government has no business getting involved.

          Currently, that would EASILY be about 90% of the ongoing thieving, destructive, openly racist disaster known as the Federal government.

        • smilee

          It defines and limits the powers of government true, but not always specifically as you claim. what do you see as specific in “general welfare” and that is the term under which Roberts in his opinion on Obamacare cited as it why it is constitutional and why they could tax to provide for it. Your opinion that it has to be specially elucidated is but your opinion and is not in the Constitution.. What part of general do you see as being specific.

          The biggest mistake conservatives always make is that they see limited government as meaning the same small government while the Constitution does limit and define governments size or limit it, Do you really believe Obamacare is small government?

          It is your lack of understanding of what the Constitution is or what it does or how it works that leads you astray an produces the baloney in your last paragraph.

        • JohnGalt

          Let me just save myself some precious time, and observe that at the most basic level, you really don’t have the slightest clue what you are talking about.

          Have a nice Collectivist life. As if.

        • smilee

          I do but it apparently is too deep for you to have any chance of understanding it as all you posts clearly illuminate your lack of knowledge in this. It is you that is clueless and unable to respond with anything intelligent to say.

        • Mudpuppy

          You are correct. Maybe it’s time we all just ignore the troll known as smilee. He’s just trying to stir everyone up to no good purpose.

        • LifeisSoGood

          This obot “smilee” uses the SAME line, but has yet to post anything intelligent. Go figure.

        • Colonialgirl

          And trolls that lack sufficient air for their brains due to head location in the rectal passageway say what you did.

        • LifeisSoGood

          Talk about repeating, that’s ALL you do when you lose an argument. Grow up already child.

        • smilee

          You are wrong as usual I have not lost the argument. People who do not get their way say this lie repeatedly

        • LifeisSoGood

          Talk about repeating, that’s ALL you do when you lose an argument. Grow up already child.

        • smilee

          You are wrong as usual I have not lost the argument. People who do not get their way say this lie repeatedly

        • LifeisSoGood

          Talk about repeating, that’s ALL you do when you lose an argument. Grow up already child.

    • smilee

      GO AHEAD!!!!

  • Hiker

    If they truly wanted to be fair, they would just fund what the Constitution states they are to do. Nothing more. Also the tax would be straight across the board. I would put it at 10% for everyone. There would be no lower end or increase in the percentage for the high end and no deductions. So if you made 10,000 dollars, the government would get 1,000 of it. If you made 250,000, the government would get 25,000 and so on. The more you make the more you pay. This progressive tax rate with so many rules and loopholes makes no sense. Also this is more fair then anything else. The one thing I can point to that makes me think like this is the tax that was instituted in the Old Testament. (Exodus 30:11-16 KJB) I know it is under the Old Covenant but it shows the example of fairness that should be observed and I know it is not a percentage but I don’t think a person who makes about 10-20 thousand a year could afford very much. Have fun.

  • Jerry

    Does it matter to them or the politicians in the courts? They and the President seem to have unlimited power to do what ever their heart desires.

  • http://www.facebook.com/jim.clark.357622 Jim Clark

    The 16th amendment began was the beginning of a move away from the principles enshrined in the constitution. The corruption of the constitution has progressed to the point that our representatives laugh when asked if a bill is constitutional. the return to the constitution must begin with the repeal of the 16th amendment. Nothing short of this will cause any significant impediment to the ultimate abandonment of the constitutional principles. Not much chance of that!
    Jim

    • DRLJR

      We also need to repeal Amendment 17 as well and restore the States’ representation in Congress. The Senate is supposed to represent the States and the House the people. I would say that distortion is more what started undermining our Representative Republic more than the 16th Amendment.

    • Shears_of_Atropos

      I think it was Chuck Shumer who, when asked whether a particular bill he supported was Constitutional, laughed and responded “What does that matter?”

  • RD

    10% across the board with no exemptions and no foreign bank accounts permitted would seem fair to me.

    • Nottakenyan

      What if you own a business in a foreign country and only do business in that country?
      How do you operate without a foreign bank account?

    • Noni77

      I would prefer the ability to have a foreign bank account to avoid theft by a bankrupt government like ours and to hold my savings in a STRONG currency. US law REQUIRES all foreign accounts be reported, so cheating is a lot more difficult, but theft (confiscation/devaluation) by a criminal government is also more difficult.

    • Miss Zagros Sadjadi

      We should be absolutely allowed to have a foreign bank account. How else can we be sure that our money is safe when the economy collapses?

  • Nottakenyan

    America does not need legalized prostitution.
    The government screws taxpayers daily!!!

  • xoxozo

    But remember, if everybody pay “their fair share” than the progressive/dams wouldn’t necessarily get the votes needed to keep this mess up. AND I am NOT in the high tax range.

  • Jeff Miller

    The only diffence between taking money from the rich via the tax code and taking it via armed robbery is that poor would have to get off their ass and actually do their own robbing.

  • dHb

    Since when in recent memory has the Congress or the White House followed the provisions of the constitution? They are constantly looking for ways to skirt around it or outright ignore it.

    • smilee

      Please explain how and why you believe it??????????????

  • Fox

    “from whatever source derived”

    What, exactly, does that mean?

    • ilpatriot58

      Nowadays, it probably means from the illegal meth lab in someone’s basement, or the pot plants……hahahaha

  • Nottakenyan

    Unless you pay taxes, you should not be allowed to vote!!!

    • Miss Zagros Sadjadi

      Can I get more votes if I pay more in taxes? Now that would be sweet.

      • Patriot

        It sounds fair doesn’t it? :)

      • http://www.facebook.com/john.giorgi.7 John Giorgi

        I want to play more. It isn’t fair that free loaders get to play more than I do. When will obammie spread around recess and playtime? I play so little and the people that don’t have to work much get to play almost all the time. Its not fair! Its not! Its not!

    • Chaz

      That would effectively eliminate 42% of the population. Factor in all of the unwed mothers with 5 children and the elderly without enough frickin money to live on. The free money monster has been created by the government. Food stamps and all kinds of “free” benefits for the worthless unproductive scum of America Has created a voting base of unproductive people who love the welfare system set up by the Democratic party to buy votes. Any thoughts to the contrary are pure bullshit. Feed us almighty one is the mantra of the worthless. Help us is the cry of useful members of the Nation. and it is a worthy and perfect call for help. The worthless lie and cheat to get money while the honest go begging to Churches who give as Christ has Given. I know of a Church that gives freely to all to come. No Questions Asked. 187 tons of food and $187,000 in assistance to those in need., The G0vernment has assumed the role of God, while trying to tell us there is no God.Once again, as Americans we must know what rights we are endowed with. Look for yourselves.

      • Mike B

        We do not need a god, just common sense. If you see your neighbor is hungry, give them food, but make them work for it. Give them also the pride of having earned it.

      • http://www.facebook.com/john.giorgi.7 John Giorgi

        How do you learn a lot in 1 hour? By listening to this man and please do spread it around! This doesn’t tell all, but it sums up why in part we have such a mess. It is a little over 1 hour so please watch when you have time.

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=8fQoGMtE0EY&feature=endscreen

    • http://www.facebook.com/dwgray David W Gray

      I’m a 100% disAbled Vet and my VA disability is tax free and I pay no taxes. Are you saying I shouldn’t have the right to vote?

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/Roy-Koch/100000430051945 Roy Koch

        YOU Already Paid/Gave at the “OFFICE”, so to speak!4th 5th Gen. Welfare leeches, and those Gaming the SSI System who NEVER paid/Pay Taxes, and never will, living Large, Selling Dope and Breeding on my Tax-$$ Should not get to vote

      • TIM

        You know this does not apply to you. You served and were injured on the job and can receive compensation without losing your voting powers.

        Everytime some one wants to clean up Government handouts, a leftist comes out screaming about the disabled when you know by default they are not included in the argument. This is used to vilify the person who is presenting the argument.

      • smilee

        HE SEEMS TO BE BUT HIS OPINION WILL NOT KEEP YOU FROM VOTING THANKS FOR YOU SACRIFICE.

      • gary

        You have the right to vote however you should be obligated to pay your equal share of the countries tax burden not a fair share

      • Mudpuppy

        Yes you should have the right to vote. You earned your VA disability through your service to your country. The country owes you. It’s the slugs (like that hideous obamaphone woman-thing) that should be denied the right to vote until they become productive members of society and get some skin in the game (pay taxes). We can amend the Constitution to make it so if necessary. If you can become gainfully employed, then you will be paying taxes anyway.

    • smilee

      THAT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL, YOUR ENTITLED TO YOUR OPINION BUT THAT IS ALL IT IS AND IT IS WRONG!!

  • BigUgly666

    According to the Supreme Court, the 16th Amendment creates NO NEW POWERS OF TAXATION – it must still be “income” to be taxable ….. you all need to look up the meaning of “income” in the tax code …… for most of you, your “pay” is not “income” until YOU tell the “Internal Revenue” service that it is.

  • Chaz

    Congress has the Constitutional right to tax commerce. That is it. It is unconstitutional to tax personal income. Here is why. If the Government legally taxes commerce, then the tax has been paid. Taxing the general working population the becomes “double taxation”. Double taxation violates the constitution ergo, any taxation beyond commerce violates the Constitution of the United States Of America. This is common knowledge within the IRS. They know that they have no legal authority to impose tax, albeit, they have the fricking power to make your life miserable if you do not pay taxes. No legal president from the Supreme Court on down has legally approved taxation of the general population. Due diligence people. Find out the truth before it is too late. Find out for yourselves. Read the Constitution for yourselves without Republican or Democratic glasses. PLEASE FIND THE TRUTH FOR YOURSELVES BEFORE WE DIE AS THE GREATEST NATION KNOWN TO MANKIND.

    • smilee

      Boy are you a whacko, go find the real truth since the beginning congress has had th power to tax to pay debt, provide for the defense and general welfare and others as enumerated in Art. 1 sec 8 and later in some amendments and they cannot be ignored. Just look at the Obamare opinion recently as the most recent example.

      • Ron Obvious

        Why did they need the 16 Amendment if they always had the ‘Power’ to tax income? Inquiring minds want to know!

        • DRLJR

          Direct taxes on wages is prohibited by Article 1 Section 9 Paragraph 4 unless it is based upon the census. Progressives wanted a way to tax the people directly in order to implement their Socialist agenda.

        • smilee

          Clarification, as some said they needed it. There was tax on incomes before at least once during Lincoln’s administration and many argued against it and years later to remove all doubt they did the 16th. Clarifications comes two ways either by SC decision or a new amendment which clarifies.

      • http://www.facebook.com/john.giorgi.7 John Giorgi

        Actually smilee is correct. They do have the right to tax us and the 16th Amendment not being ratified is incorrect. It was. However, we are still taxed way to much. The Federal government is way to big. The number of people taking money is way to large. There is too much waste in government – all areas. The debt ceiling cannot be raised forever. To think you could spend yourself out of a recession when we have such a debt and tax burden already is pure nonsense. The dems give so much away all for votes, power and money; and the Reps try to compete but can’t as Santa Claus is just too powerful. Please watch this video. This doesn’t tell all, but it sums up why in part we have such a mess. It is a little over 1 hour so please watch when you have time.

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=8fQoGMtE0EY&feature=endscreen

        • smilee

          I agree there is to much waste in government and to much subsidies but it is wrong to blame the recipients of subsidies as example the earned income credit which is for subsidizing the underpaid worker’s wages in cash or an indirect employer subsidy as it is an incentive for them to not pay livable wages knowing that the government will make up that difference with this and other welfare’s now available just for working people witch was not available before 1986. You call it Santa Clause and say he is to too powerful and blame that on Democrats. Reagan signed into law in 1986 the earned income credit and in the welfare reform in 94 & 95 the republicans with Clinton’s blessing added numerous welfare programs for the working poor and this created the Santa Clause you speak of. If most understood the debt ceiling they would know that Congress passed the law and did not properly fund it so the piggy band went dry so when they refuse to fund it bills they authorized do not get paid as the executive branch cannot not authorize one cent but can only approve or disapprove what congress does. The debt limit should rise automatically unless congress repeals or modifies exiting laws and only they can do so. Obama has told and warned them he will not wrangle for additional debt limits so if the Congress does not want to fund its laws then they will be on their own defending why they did it and thus be held responsible for it. It is bad policy to fund the government this way.