The liberal v right wing mentality...

Discussion in 'Human Science' started by alexb123, Jan 25, 2017.

  1. billvon Valued Senior Member

    No, they didn't. They neither prohibited an income tax nor did they state that a strong federal government was to be avoided. Indeed, they tasked Congress with providing for the general welfare of the United States.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Dinosaur Rational Skeptic Valued Senior Member

    From JoePistole Post #18
    You might be able to quibble on this issue, because the original constitution did not explicitly make an income tax illegal: It merely stated that taxes be apportioned according to the population of each state, which surely implies that an income tax was not provided for. Note the bold portions of the following

    The 16th Amendment was enacted to over-ride the bolded portion of the original constitution, which was interpreted as disallowing an income tax.

    From the initial US Constitution
    The Constitution specifically stated Congress' method of imposing direct taxes, by requiring Congress to distribute direct taxes in proportion to each state's population. From Article 1, Section 2, paragraph 3
    The above was modified by the 16th Amendment: From Wikipedia
    There was a temporary income tax applied for several years to finance the Civil War & I think there were proposals for such a tax during the war of 1812.[/quote]

    BTW: the three fifths clause (see above) has often been castigated due to slaves (blacks) being considered to be only 3/5 the value of whites. The slave owners wanted them to be counted as full persons to give them more representatives & the Northerner wanted to count them as zero because they could not vote.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    No. Income taxes applied to wage income are fully in accord with the original Constitution.

    The original Constitution "provided for" (allowed) Federal income tax on wage income, commission income, etc. No problem. Such taxes are automatically "apportioned according to population".

    The problem with the income tax passed in the early 1900s was that it was applied to income derived from capital, such as farm production and land rental, and according to the Court that kind of capital (and therefore the income from it, and therefore any tax on same) was not apportioned according to population.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Dinosaur Rational Skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Iceaura: From your Post #23
    Could you expand on the semantics of your above statement? Did it allow a tax like the modern income tax?

    In particular, consider the semantics of Article 1, Section 2, paragraph 3 of the original constitution
    The above was viewed as not allowing the modern graduated federal income tax, which was allowed by the 16th Amendment in 1913.
  8. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

  9. billvon Valued Senior Member

    It neither allowed nor prohibited it. Similar to the power that Congress used to create the Federal Aviation Administration - something else that was not explicitly allowed by the Constitution.
    sideshowbob likes this.
  10. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    On wage income, commission income, etc: yes.

    The only sticking point was income from capital, such as farm products and land rents. The original was written to protect the great slave plantations from Federal coercion, remember, and that included preventing onerous taxes from being levied against that tempting pile of wealth.

    The great wealth and return to capital of the slave plantations was an obvious target for the Federal tax man, and the plantation owners who helped write the Constitution were well aware of the temptation - it remained a source of conflict from then on until 1865.
  11. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Again: wage and commission income - return to labor, paid to the laborer - could be Federally taxed from the Founding on, because
    {my take: labor is apportioned by population automatically;
    {Wiki take and standard official version different:
    but result the same:

    The Amendment got rid of the Constitutional prohibition on Federally taxing income derived from capital, such as slaves or farmland or stocks and bonds, that was visible in the original and made explicit by "Pollock". And that is all it did.

    A Federal tax on wage and commission income, income earned by employment or "labor", just like we have now, has always been Constitutional - from day one.
  12. Jeeves Valued Senior Member

    18th century privileged white men, in a relatively small colony, didn't foresee all that the government of a world superpower would eventually have to be responsible for?
    But isn't that what you have the amending formula for?
    You can't govern without levying taxes. Quibbling over the particulars doesn't change the fact that all government, of all parties and policies, have always had to collect revenues.

    Anyway, liberal and conservative do not need to be polar opposites: that's a product of a very stupid, very destructive political system.
    If you are conservative, can you identify what it is you hope to conserve? To what extent does that value conflict with allowing other people to express their individuality?
    If you are liberal, what is it you are generous with/ tolerant about? Is there any reason that view should conflict with fiscal responsibility?

    Are you not both fundamentally concerned with individual liberty?
    sideshowbob likes this.
  13. Dinosaur Rational Skeptic Valued Senior Member

    This discussion astonishes me!! I majored in Mathematics & minored in various sciences.

    I never considered myself a student of history, but realize that many Posters here are less familiar with history than I am.

    Check the following:
  14. Jeeves Valued Senior Member

    And? How does the history of taxation relate to the topic?
  15. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    The fact remains that a Federal income tax on wage income and similar income was perfectly Constitutional from day one. Your wages have always been available for a Federal income tax, whenever the Federal government needed to do that, from the Founding of the country on.

    The only reason any Constitutional amendment was needed was to allow income from capital - especially from sale of farm produce and rental of farm land and the like - to be Federally taxed as well.

    Your source there obscures this distinction, but you have seen others that more clearly describe the matter. Your source also obscures the distinction between State and Federal income taxes - all State income taxes, on any income, have always been ok.

    As far as how it relates to the topic, your confusion illustrates a common feature of rightwing mentality - the tendency to overlook economic class as an important political feature. The original Constitutional provision was mainly a protection for the great southern slave plantations, also the lesser but still influential capitalist enterprises of the North. It protected large accumulations of wealth and capital from being taxed by the powerful Federal government.

    The physical and realistic ability of the Federal government, much more than the State governments, to levy taxes on great wealth and powerful men, was the central matter.

    As far as what one might call the moral hazard of the income tax - especially the steeply progressive one, which can raise substantial revenue without alienating the large body of voters - there is less disagreement about that between liberals and conservatives per se than one might imagine. Gore Vidal, for example, famous liberal, pointed out several times that the bad wars and military buildup of the US was based on the income tax, and that the income tax was therefore dubious and should be viewed with great suspicion. Having to pay 90% rates on some of one's income occasionally will bring issues into focus, apparently.
  16. Dinosaur Rational Skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Folks here are ignoring the information provided by my Posts #22 & #30

    From Post #22
    Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.
    The above was changed by the 16th amendment (from Wikipedia

    The Sixteenth Amendment (Amendment XVI) to the United States Constitution allows the Congress to levy an income tax without apportioning it among the states or basing it on the United States Census . . . . . .The amendment was adopted on February 3, 1913.​

    From Post #30
  17. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    You are still apparently thinking wrong about that.

    A Federal income tax on wage income and similar income was perfectly legal and Constitutional from day one.
    A State income tax on income from any source was perfectly legal and Constitutional from day one.

    The 16th Amendment permitted the Federal government to tax income from capital - such as agricultural land rent, sale of agricultural products, earnings from a business, and the like. That was the new thing.
    (In the early days a far higher percentage of people, and originally almost all voters, were "self employed" as farmers and artisans and such, obtaining their income from selling the product of capital investment (tools, draft animals, land, etc). The greatest capital investment and source of highest return was of course slaves, and the original Constitution was carefully written by slaveowners to protect the wealth of the slave plantations from being taxed by the Federal government. That's what the weird language about "apportionment" was all about).
  18. Dinosaur Rational Skeptic Valued Senior Member

    From Iceaura Post #34]b] . . . .[/b]A Federal income tax on wage income and similar income was perfectly legal and Constitutional from day one./b] . . . .[/b]
    The semantics of Article 1, Section 2, Paragraph 3 are very clear.
    The above was the basis for declaring the 1894 Income tax unconstitutional. It clearly indicates that a Federal Head Tax was allowed, but an income tax was verboten.

    Note the following from
    The Wikipedia article included the following text from the 16th amendment
    The above clearly indicates that prior to the 16th amendment the Federal government was allowed a head tax, but not an income tax.
  19. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Incorrect. Look at the decision:
    First. We adhere to the opinion already announced—that, taxes on real estate being indisputably direct taxes, taxes on the rents or income of real estate are equally direct taxes.
    Second. We are of opinion that taxes on personal property, or on the income of personal property, are likewise direct taxes.
    Third. The tax imposed by sections 27 to 37, inclusive, of the act of 1894, so far as it falls on the income of real estate, and of personal property, being a direct tax, within the meaning of the constitution, and therefore unconstitutional and void, because not apportioned according to representation, all those sections, constituting one entire scheme of taxation, are necessarily invalid.
    The Supreme Court's decision was that the direct taxes on real estate, personal property, or income from real estate (i.e. rent) were unconstitutional. Nothing about income in general.

    Also note that the Sixteenth Amendment fixed that specific problem - it allowed taxes on income from property or real estate (i.e. rent.)
  20. danshawen Valued Senior Member

    As a lifetime liberal, I don't think I will ever be able to identify with things like:

    Flying a confederate or a foreign flag on my property, or on government buildings.

    Recognizing racism as something I value or support in any way.

    Promoting freedom of religion as superior to other enumerated rights, or to support any law that makes separation of church and state as intended by the Constitution either more difficult or more preferential.

    Promoting selling guns or the NRA or building walls to a country or a people who do not need them by making people fear their neighbors, or of being overrun by immigrants. The second ammendment, like freedom of religion, is an important right, but it is not more important than other enumerated rights, or the safety and security of your neighbors.

    And it bothers me a lot when someone who has taken an oath to uphold all of the constitution picks out just a few of its provisions like they were reading a menu in a restaurant.

    Almost none of the values of that other party are my values, but I do recognize that they are as entitled to them as I am entitled to mine, at least until the next general election.
  21. Syne Sine qua non Valued Senior Member

    The left appeals to the young because it is similarly shortsighted and selfish, doing good as virtue signaling peer approval far more than any concern over the actual, real world outcomes of their policies. A government stand-in for mommy and daddy allows some on the left to continue believing as they do far into adulthood.
    The right generally appeals to older people because they have the experience to know the futility of trying to alter human nature to fit overzealous ideals and the need to keep that human nature in check.
  22. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    The "right", properly so called, appeals to only a minority of older people. Most older people favor closely regulating bankers, strongly interfering with any ostensible "free market" in moneylending and the like, for example. That's from experience.

    So you really mean Republican, not "right".

    And there we find numerous exceptions - such as greed, bigotry, intellectual laziness, powerlust, the desire to punish, and the attraction to big-talking male authoritarians as political leaders. Keeping those aspects of human nature in check is not in the Republican agenda.
  23. danshawen Valued Senior Member

    I'm an older white male, and live close to the Southern Pennsylvania border. Did only Nazis settle there? I don't share any of the values the people there seem to have, nor do I support either Donald Trump or anyone in his administration. Don't need or want their coal or their mercury coal fly ash runoff or their strudel or their politics. Don't care if they make never make any more steel, or crosses of iron. Too many of them avoid taxes by bartering, claiming that paying their fair share of taxes is against their religion. Of course, Trump would be their sugar daddy. No other state in these Confederate states gets that kind of tax break. This is the kind of politics we need to deal with.

    I voted for Obama twice, and would do so again. I supported all of his fiscal and foreign policies. We should avoid getting involved in a wider Middle East conflict for as long as our oil reserves hold out. We should invest our wealth in clean energy initiatives, and we should never deregulate banks. Ever. Democrats keep having to straighten out the fiscal mess repugs always leave behind when they lose power.

    Sebastian Gorka's ideas are the greatest danger to our democracy I have seen in a long lifetime. We cannot be a police force for the world, especially the way the world is today. If you wish to fear something, Gorka's world view is more than a little terrifying. I'd rather face 100 years of world terrorism than embark on a foreign policy he or others like him would suggest. 64 million immigrants worldwide because of transregional conflicts do not concern me even a little bit. We don't need to take them all in to make a positive difference. Bargain for managing that, if you are such a great deal maker, Trump.

    Trump congratulating Ergodan was bad enough. For what, exactly? For turning a secular democratic society into a real Caliphate? This can only get worse.
    Last edited: May 6, 2017

Share This Page