On 9/17/2021 4:31 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> On Friday, September 17, 2021 at 11:44:56 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
>> On 9/17/2021 11:54 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>>> On Friday, September 17, 2021 at 9:52:32 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
>>>> On 9/17/2021 11:40 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>>>>> On Friday, September 17, 2021 at 8:45:39 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>>> On 9/17/2021 9:46 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>>>>>>> On Friday, September 17, 2021 at 5:49:36 AM UTC-7, William Crowell wrote:
>>>>>>>> Yes, Tom, I believe I do understand what an excise tax is. I took two semesters of tax law in law school and also some "Mandatory Continuing Legal Education" courses on tax law. But maybe you went to a better law school than I did. I went to one of the U.C. law schools. I'll bet you went to Harvard or Yale, you corker, and just haven't told us because you're so modest.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So if a commie and a conservative agree that the sky is blue, does that mean that the conservative is a commie?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Actually, I view U.S. history as a play with quite a few acts. Even though the first act was pretty phony, there is plenty of time for the play to redeem itself. And I will admit that every time I have traveled abroad, I kissed the ground I walked upon, figuratively speaking, when I returned to U.S. soil. We're just discussing our country's original sin that the revolution was ginned up (not to mention the original sin of slavery), but the real meaning of the story is probably in the salvation from that sin.
>>>>>>> Then explain to us why you think that an excise tax would not be found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court? Show us all that vast legal knowledge of yours which would put the load for paying for government upon a select and weaker minority and tell us that you're a Conservative again.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> WTF?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Article I, sec 8:
>>>>>> https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI_S8_C1_1/
>>>>>
>>>>> Andrew, ask Jay what that means. They are saying that it is legal to use taxes as a method of regulation. It doesn't say that the government may obtain its income from a select group whose power to respond is limited.
>>>>>
>>>>> Now indeed, the means by which the government has assigned the levels of taxation more or less does the same thing with the top 10% of income earners paying something like 80% of the taxes but this in effect is the overwhelming majority of income earners since last time I checked, the bottom end of that top 10% was $116,000 or a sanitation worker that works overtime often. And most government workers.
>>>>>
>>>> 'a select group' ?
>>>> Such as whiskey producers & whiskey drinkers? Big group!
>>>>
>>>> Alcohol excise tax started on Day One under our
>>>> Constitution. You can bitch and moan but that's how it is,
>>>> then and now.
>>>>
>>>> https://www.britannica.com/event/Whiskey-Rebellion
>>>
>>> As I said, the government DOES have the ability to tax specific groups to CONTROL NEGATIVE BEHAVIOR. They do not have the ability to fund themselves only via small groups.
>>>
>> Peruse Art I sec 8 again and maybe rephrase that.
>
> Andrew, you are not a Constitutional lawyer. In the manner you're interpreting that there would have been no reason for the Supreme Court to overthrow the attempt to support the majority of the population by taxing a minority. So think about that. Taxes are legal We know that. And taxes can be exercised by virtually any means. But you may not screw some minority for your own benefit. The present means of taxation of the rich could probably be challenged in court but the rich are willing to carry the load up to this point. But we presently have a 22 Trillion dollar national debt and it isn't going to be too long before large tax increases are coming and the rich aren't going to agree to carry that much additional load.
>

Words have meaning.

_Excise taxes_ are specifically constitutional with a whole
bunch of Statutes for implementation and penalties.

_Income taxes_ were absolutely unconstitutional and with
good reason. The Framers understood your argument and wrote
protections against them. Yes, The Supremes struck down
early attempts as unconstitutional, and rightly so, both
textually and morally. The dread 16th Amendment changed
everything, making income taxes possible (quickly
implemented by Statute) and forever changing the
relationship of the individual citizen to the State. To our
greater loss, but there it is.

https://mmsbharathm7.weebly.com/uploads/1/5/7/0/15702150/117023625.JPG

_Wealth tax_ as being currently fomented in the Congress is
as unconstitutional as anything and so would require another
Amendment. That will never happen with 30 million illegals
voting plus an extra 2 million illegals this year for the
next election. But make it another 5 or 10 million a few
years on, and all bets are off. Hold on, it's going to be a
wild ride once Americans are outvoted by 'dreamers'.

--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On Fri, 17 Sep 2021 07:44:28 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
<cyclintom@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Thursday, September 16, 2021 at 5:52:34 PM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
>> On 9/16/2021 7:08 PM, John B. wrote:
>> > On Thu, 16 Sep 2021 11:57:38 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>> > <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On 9/15/2021 9:44 PM, John B. wrote:
>> >>> On Wed, 15 Sep 2021 18:15:07 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski
>> >>> <frkr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>> On Wednesday, September 15, 2021 at 5:15:24 PM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
>> >>>>> On 9/15/2021 5:25 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>> >>>>>> On Wednesday, September 15, 2021 at 3:12:19 PM UTC-7, Tom Kunich wrote:
>> >>>>>>> On Wednesday, September 15, 2021 at 2:45:09 PM UTC-7, William Crowell wrote:
>> >>>>>>>> On Wednesday, September 15, 2021 at 2:34:20 PM UTC-7, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, September 15, 2021 at 1:04:53 PM UTC-7, William Crowell wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>>> Not long. It's going down the tubes right now. Our government's logical and moral contradictions are now coming back to haunt us, since it was based on the phony premise that our founding fathers were really interested in personal liberty, when all they were really interested in was grabbing as much land and resources as possible in order to get rich. They weren't overtaxed by the British, as they claimed. At the time the Declaration of Independence was signed, the average colonist was paying 1 schilling per year in taxes to the British government, while the average Briton was paying 29 schillings. And the Boston Tea Party was totally phonied up. Everybody, including the courts, recognized that an income tax was a taking of property in violation of the 5th Amendment until the hoi polloi ratified the 16th Amendment.
>> >>>>>>>>> You can invent anything you like Bill. WHAT do you know about taxation of a group that had to sell their goods 2,000 miles away by ship? Until cotton they didn't even HAVE and income and still had to pay taxes. When you haven't even a passing understanding of history, why are you commenting? Feeding people? Virtually everyone in this country was a farmer before the war of independence and they fed THEMSELVES. But they still had to pay taxes and they had NO MONEY from which to pay them. Can you suggest to me where you ever got the idea that somehow Americans didn't have the human right of Freedom and the right to self determination.
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> Tell me little man, what did George Washington say when they offered him a kingship? Or was that covered in your class on Marxism?
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> Tell me what was "phonied up" about the Boston Tea Party when it was the British East Indies Company that reported the loss of 90,000 lbs of tea in Boston harbor. So WHAT was it that was "phonied up"? People who don't read history should not be telling us anything about it.
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> What are you blathering on about the 16th Amendment. If was ALWAYS understood that a government had to be paid for. The only arguments were in what form it would take, The Supreme Court ruled most of those methods unconstitutional so you have absolutely no say in that and your opinions are null and void.
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> Are you trying to look somehow intelligent by making uninformed accusations?
>> >>>>>>>> Wow, Tom, you really don't know what you are talking about! I can completely contradict all of your arguments, if anyone is interested in hearing it, by citing references to very well-respected works on U.S. history. And I'm no Marxist; where do you get that stuff? Just another straw man argument? I'm a conservative. To answer just one of your incorrect assertions: originally it was contemplated that the federal government would be financed by excise taxes. Income taxes were considered to be just a seizure of an individual's property under a different name. But the real question is, why do you find it necessary to continually insult other members of the group? Can't you discuss the issues like a gentleman? I'm really starting to think that Frank Krygowski and John Slocum are right about you.
>> >>>>>>> Sorry Bill, but conservatives do not argue that the Boston Tea Party was phony. This was reported to the Crown by the East Indies company itself. Any references you got are poppycock.
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> "As a result of the Boston Tea Party, tension between Great Britain and the colonies grew, which led to Great Britain imposing what would be known as the Intolerable Acts.
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> Explanation:
>> >>>>>>> As an act of showing how upset they were about the new tax imposed on tea (or in other words, as a way of showing the British a piece of their mind), the colonists in Massachusetts decided to throw 342 trunks of tea into the Boston Harbor.
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> However, the colonists didn't achieved their main goal, which was to get Great Britain to understand them. Instead, in some way, this had a totally opposite effect. For instance, It did get the attention of the King and Parliament (they were furious).
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> They decided that the colonists must be punished, just as a naughty child was punished for destroying something which belonged to his parents. The list of punishments was long and severe."
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> This ended up with the Boston Harbor being closed down by the British Navy. And this led to another tea party and comments by John Adams, "Last Night 3 Cargoes of Bohea Tea were emptied into the Sea. This Morning a Man of War sails. This is the most magnificent Movement of all. There is a Dignity, a Majesty, a Sublimity, in this last Effort of the Patriots, that I greatly admire. The People should never rise, without doing something to be remembered—something notable And striking. This Destruction of the Tea is so bold, so daring, so firm, intrepid and inflexible, and it must have so important Consequences, and so lasting, that I cant but consider it as an Epocha in History."
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> These led to the entire nullification of ALL tax laws on colonists.
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> "American writers were for many years apparently reluctant to celebrate the destruction of property, and so the event was usually ignored in histories of the American Revolution. This began to change in the 1830s, however, especially with the publication of biographies of George Robert Twelves Hewes, one of the few still-living participants of the "tea party", as it then became known."
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> This is no doubt where you got the idea that the Boston Tea Party was phony. American writers and most especially the leftists will contradict ANY American history using things like this. If you are taken in by this, you have been looking in the wrong spot.
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> Do you even know what an excise tax is? Governments are supposed to be underwritten by those being governed and NOT some specific subgroup that you feel you may trample upon. Again. if you don't know, the Supreme Court overruled that idea. What can I say?
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> I should add that American won the revolutionary war because they were British soldierly and knew their enemy well. Great Britain hadn't stood against an army of their own caliber that many times before and when they did it usually turned out bad for the British who were fighting DISTANCE from their supplies. Marching in columns is a very bad defense against an enemy who doesn't show himself and are accurate shooters from hunting. It took WW 1 to break British generals from this stupid practice. Charging across a no-man's land with your enemy in fortifications with rapid firing weapons is not the most intelligent military strategy. Of course I say that from the experience of high speed hit and run.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>> Go reread the campaigns of the Boer Wars. British invented
>> >>>>> khaki, bicycle regiments to enhance infantry, Kichener
>> >>>>> invented concentration camps, many other innovations to a
>> >>>>> successful conclusion. Similarly to our Revolution, the
>> >>>>> Boers had longer range rifles and dispersed irregulars but
>> >>>>> took 2d place nonetheless.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> The book _The Mosquito_ by Winegard claims that mosquitos were one of the most important factors in the
>> >>>> success of the American revolution. The traitorous revolutionaries were much more knowledgeable about
>> >>>> when and where the mosquitos spread malaria, yellow fever, etc.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> - Frank Krygowski
>> >>>
>> >>> And Washington, in 1777 ordered that the members of the Continental
>> >>> forces be vaccinated against smallpox.
>> >>>
>> >>> But, mosquito's? I would wonder as the British had by the late 1700's
>> >>> been active in tropical countries such as India and China for some
>> >>> time and must have been familiar with mosquito's, and was the
>> >>> relationship between mosquito's and sickness realized in the 1700's?
>> >>
>> >> I read the book a while ago, then gave it away. But as I recall, there
>> >> was no widespread understanding of the link between mosquitoes and
>> >> disease. The term "malaria" comes from bad air, and the air in swampy
>> >> lands was thought to be the cause of the disease.
>> >>
>> >> But the Americans knew much more about where the swampy lands were and
>> >> the times of year that malaria and yellow fever ran rampant. The British
>> >> bumbled around an unknown country and suffered heavy losses of manpower.
>> >>
>> >> Here's a brief article:
>> >> https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/18/AR2010101806002.html
>> >
>> > I wonder... After all the colonies were essentially British and I
>> > believe it is estimated that roughly a third of the "colonists" were
>> > pro "The Motherland" so it does seem likely that British forces, who
>> > had been fighting in the "new world" for about 20 years before the
>> > "Great Mutiny" might have become aware of the various sicknesses that
>> > were common.
>> >
>> > I only did a very quick look but it appears that Smallpox was seen as
>> > the greatest danger and both the British and Colonists (at a later
>> > date) inoculated their troops against it.
>> >
>> > But, who knows now. So much utter foolishness has been written about
>> > wars that nearly 250 years later who knows what actually happened (:-)
>> >
>> Having read quite a bit of period writings, yes smallpox was
>> a big problem, especially in Boston in 1775.
>>
>> It's unclear to me that anyone at the time understood
>> mosquitos as disease vectors but Frank makes a good point
>> about humid dank low areas near water, probably a fungible
>> difference. Whether either army behaved/maneuvered
>> differently with that in mind is not at all clear to me.
>> Maybe, maybe not.
>>
>> Mahon credits the French navy at Yorktown for turning the
>> final victory, something skipped over in schoolbooks.
>
>Don't let anyone like John tell you someone was "inoculated" against Smallpox. This was "achieved" by rubbing the powdered scabs of recovering smallpox victims into open wounds of the "inoculated" and caused as much smallpox and it supposedly prevented. John and his moronic reading of history from the Internet is why actual books by scholars were written.

On Fri, 17 Sep 2021 09:54:45 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
<cyclintom@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Friday, September 17, 2021 at 9:52:32 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
>> On 9/17/2021 11:40 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>> > On Friday, September 17, 2021 at 8:45:39 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
>> >> On 9/17/2021 9:46 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>> >>> On Friday, September 17, 2021 at 5:49:36 AM UTC-7, William Crowell wrote:
>> >>>> Yes, Tom, I believe I do understand what an excise tax is. I took two semesters of tax law in law school and also some "Mandatory Continuing Legal Education" courses on tax law. But maybe you went to a better law school than I did. I went to one of the U.C. law schools. I'll bet you went to Harvard or Yale, you corker, and just haven't told us because you're so modest.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> So if a commie and a conservative agree that the sky is blue, does that mean that the conservative is a commie?
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Actually, I view U.S. history as a play with quite a few acts. Even though the first act was pretty phony, there is plenty of time for the play to redeem itself. And I will admit that every time I have traveled abroad, I kissed the ground I walked upon, figuratively speaking, when I returned to U.S. soil. We're just discussing our country's original sin that the revolution was ginned up (not to mention the original sin of slavery), but the real meaning of the story is probably in the salvation from that sin.
>> >>> Then explain to us why you think that an excise tax would not be found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court? Show us all that vast legal knowledge of yours which would put the load for paying for government upon a select and weaker minority and tell us that you're a Conservative again.
>> >>>
>> >> WTF?
>> >>
>> >> Article I, sec 8:
>> >> https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI_S8_C1_1/
>> >
>> > Andrew, ask Jay what that means. They are saying that it is legal to use taxes as a method of regulation. It doesn't say that the government may obtain its income from a select group whose power to respond is limited.
>> >
>> > Now indeed, the means by which the government has assigned the levels of taxation more or less does the same thing with the top 10% of income earners paying something like 80% of the taxes but this in effect is the overwhelming majority of income earners since last time I checked, the bottom end of that top 10% was $116,000 or a sanitation worker that works overtime often. And most government workers.
>> >
>> 'a select group' ?
>> Such as whiskey producers & whiskey drinkers? Big group!
>>
>> Alcohol excise tax started on Day One under our
>> Constitution. You can bitch and moan but that's how it is,
>> then and now.
>>
>> https://www.britannica.com/event/Whiskey-Rebellion
>
>As I said, the government DOES have the ability to tax specific groups to CONTROL NEGATIVE BEHAVIOR. They do not have the ability to fund themselves only via small groups.

And the Resident Expert Dribbles down his shirt front Again. The U.S.
government has the right to levy taxes. Period. End of discussion.

Whether these taxes are to be paid by individuals or organizations is
immaterial.

--
Cheers,

John B.

On Thursday, September 16, 2021 at 5:51:54 PM UTC-5, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
> Why don't you tell us again how you're a conservative as you spit your Democrat talking points all over the group. Tell us all - what is a "Trumper Republican"? I actually was born and grew up in Oakland. I NEVER lived anywhere where blacks weren't the majority around me except in the Air Force and there the most important people in the shop were the two black sergeants that actually repaired the equipment and they did it correctly.
>
> Why don't you tell me about all of the blacks you lived around and how many were in the schools you went to?
>
> Why dem slaves hated those evil slave owners so much that most of them took the names of their masters.

I don't understand this calling me a conservative attack you are on. I have never ever said I am a conservative. At least in terms of using conservative as it describes political parties in the USA. I can be conservative on spending money at times. I am conservative in my dressing. Nothing ostentatious for me. But as conservative is used for political parties, NO. I am very proud to vote for the Democrat in all elections that have party affiliation.

A Trumper Republican would be characterized as a new person to politics. Someone who was awoken in just the last few years. A person who repeats and believes the Trump lies about Covid, the election loss, and others. A person who has no political objective other than instituting Trump's lies and nonsensical ideas. Old time Republicans yipped and yapped about small government and freedom and low taxes, etc. Lots of nonsense. Because they spent trillions upon trillions of government money on "defense" and needless military wars and bankrupted the government or drove its debt to sky high levels while cutting taxes for people and business who gave them bribes. And they happily used the government to suppress minorities and women on various health matters. That is the old time Republicans. New Trumper Republicans still have those same faults but have just added on with the blind obedience to their new master.

I am very glad you grew up in Oakland and have remained there ever since. I still find it odd that you hate your state so much but choose to remain there. I have lived in the midwest all my life. Nebraska, Kansas, Iowa, Kansas, Iowa, Kansas, Iowa is the progression of my living quarters. I have attended college in two of these states and have degrees from one of the states. I root for all three states in college sports. Well, one of the schools in the three states. There are certain schools in these states that I hate.

I spent 6th grade through Senior year living in Leavenworth Kansas. For those who may not know, Leavenworth is a somewhat famous town. It has a Federal prison and an Army base. It also has a Federal Veterans Administration hospital/domicile and a state prison is in the suburb to the south. Lansing. There are a lot of government jobs in Leavenworth Kansas. Leavenworth may have the highest percentage of blacks in any city in Kansas except maybe some parts of Kansas City, Kansas. Therefore I had a significant percentage of blacks in my junior high and senior high schools. Today I do not have much contacts with any blacks. The biking group I ride with today only has one black man who rides with us. And in my daily life I do not meet many blacks on a day to day basis. Central Iowa is not a very diversified location for ethnicity. We do have an area of town with a higher percentage of black population. But overall Iowa is a low black percentage state.

As for slaves taking the last name of their former masters when freed, that can be explained by the slaves instantly becoming free. And previously they had no last name at all. Just whatever name their owner called them. They were ignorant of naming conventions. So they simply took whatever was available. You also have a large percentage of blacks with last names of Washington and Jefferson. The first and third presidents of the USA. They just picked a name that was available. With Washington and Jefferson they probably were told these were iconic Americans so assumed taking that name would be good. They did not take their former owner's last name because they still loved them.

On Friday, September 17, 2021 at 6:00:39 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Sep 2021 09:54:45 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
> <cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Friday, September 17, 2021 at 9:52:32 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
> >> On 9/17/2021 11:40 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> >> > On Friday, September 17, 2021 at 8:45:39 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
> >> >> On 9/17/2021 9:46 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> >> >>> On Friday, September 17, 2021 at 5:49:36 AM UTC-7, William Crowell wrote:
> >> >>>> Yes, Tom, I believe I do understand what an excise tax is. I took two semesters of tax law in law school and also some "Mandatory Continuing Legal Education" courses on tax law. But maybe you went to a better law school than I did. I went to one of the U.C. law schools. I'll bet you went to Harvard or Yale, you corker, and just haven't told us because you're so modest.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> So if a commie and a conservative agree that the sky is blue, does that mean that the conservative is a commie?
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> Actually, I view U.S. history as a play with quite a few acts. Even though the first act was pretty phony, there is plenty of time for the play to redeem itself. And I will admit that every time I have traveled abroad, I kissed the ground I walked upon, figuratively speaking, when I returned to U.S. soil. We're just discussing our country's original sin that the revolution was ginned up (not to mention the original sin of slavery), but the real meaning of the story is probably in the salvation from that sin.
> >> >>> Then explain to us why you think that an excise tax would not be found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court? Show us all that vast legal knowledge of yours which would put the load for paying for government upon a select and weaker minority and tell us that you're a Conservative again.
> >> >>>
> >> >> WTF?
> >> >>
> >> >> Article I, sec 8:
> >> >> https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI_S8_C1_1/
> >> >
> >> > Andrew, ask Jay what that means. They are saying that it is legal to use taxes as a method of regulation. It doesn't say that the government may obtain its income from a select group whose power to respond is limited.
> >> >
> >> > Now indeed, the means by which the government has assigned the levels of taxation more or less does the same thing with the top 10% of income earners paying something like 80% of the taxes but this in effect is the overwhelming majority of income earners since last time I checked, the bottom end of that top 10% was $116,000 or a sanitation worker that works overtime often. And most government workers.
> >> >
> >> 'a select group' ?
> >> Such as whiskey producers & whiskey drinkers? Big group!
> >>
> >> Alcohol excise tax started on Day One under our
> >> Constitution. You can bitch and moan but that's how it is,
> >> then and now.
> >>
> >> https://www.britannica.com/event/Whiskey-Rebellion
> >
> >As I said, the government DOES have the ability to tax specific groups to CONTROL NEGATIVE BEHAVIOR. They do not have the ability to fund themselves only via small groups.
> And the Resident Expert Dribbles down his shirt front Again. The U.S.
> government has the right to levy taxes. Period. End of discussion.
>
> Whether these taxes are to be paid by individuals or organizations is
> immaterial.
>
> --
> Cheers,
>
> John B.

Not immaterial to the individual or organization paying the taxes. Thus they pay many thousands and millions of dollars to politicians in the government to make sure some other individual and organization pays said taxes. Not me is the rallying cry around taxes.

On 9/17/2021 7:30 PM, russellseaton1@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Friday, September 17, 2021 at 6:00:39 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
>> On Fri, 17 Sep 2021 09:54:45 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
>> <cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Friday, September 17, 2021 at 9:52:32 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
>>>> On 9/17/2021 11:40 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>>>>> On Friday, September 17, 2021 at 8:45:39 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>>> On 9/17/2021 9:46 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>>>>>>> On Friday, September 17, 2021 at 5:49:36 AM UTC-7, William Crowell wrote:
>>>>>>>> Yes, Tom, I believe I do understand what an excise tax is. I took two semesters of tax law in law school and also some "Mandatory Continuing Legal Education" courses on tax law. But maybe you went to a better law school than I did. I went to one of the U.C. law schools. I'll bet you went to Harvard or Yale, you corker, and just haven't told us because you're so modest.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So if a commie and a conservative agree that the sky is blue, does that mean that the conservative is a commie?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Actually, I view U.S. history as a play with quite a few acts. Even though the first act was pretty phony, there is plenty of time for the play to redeem itself. And I will admit that every time I have traveled abroad, I kissed the ground I walked upon, figuratively speaking, when I returned to U.S. soil. We're just discussing our country's original sin that the revolution was ginned up (not to mention the original sin of slavery), but the real meaning of the story is probably in the salvation from that sin.
>>>>>>> Then explain to us why you think that an excise tax would not be found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court? Show us all that vast legal knowledge of yours which would put the load for paying for government upon a select and weaker minority and tell us that you're a Conservative again.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> WTF?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Article I, sec 8:
>>>>>> https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI_S8_C1_1/
>>>>>
>>>>> Andrew, ask Jay what that means. They are saying that it is legal to use taxes as a method of regulation. It doesn't say that the government may obtain its income from a select group whose power to respond is limited.
>>>>>
>>>>> Now indeed, the means by which the government has assigned the levels of taxation more or less does the same thing with the top 10% of income earners paying something like 80% of the taxes but this in effect is the overwhelming majority of income earners since last time I checked, the bottom end of that top 10% was $116,000 or a sanitation worker that works overtime often. And most government workers.
>>>>>
>>>> 'a select group' ?
>>>> Such as whiskey producers & whiskey drinkers? Big group!
>>>>
>>>> Alcohol excise tax started on Day One under our
>>>> Constitution. You can bitch and moan but that's how it is,
>>>> then and now.
>>>>
>>>> https://www.britannica.com/event/Whiskey-Rebellion
>>>
>>> As I said, the government DOES have the ability to tax specific groups to CONTROL NEGATIVE BEHAVIOR. They do not have the ability to fund themselves only via small groups.
>> And the Resident Expert Dribbles down his shirt front Again. The U.S.
>> government has the right to levy taxes. Period. End of discussion.
>>
>> Whether these taxes are to be paid by individuals or organizations is
>> immaterial.
>>
>> --
>> Cheers,
>>
>> John B.
>
> Not immaterial to the individual or organization paying the taxes. Thus they pay many thousands and millions of dollars to politicians in the government to make sure some other individual and organization pays said taxes. Not me is the rallying cry around taxes.
>

+1

--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On Fri, 17 Sep 2021 17:30:05 -0700 (PDT), "russellseaton1@yahoo.com"
<ritzannaseaton@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Friday, September 17, 2021 at 6:00:39 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
>> On Fri, 17 Sep 2021 09:54:45 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
>> <cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Friday, September 17, 2021 at 9:52:32 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
>> >> On 9/17/2021 11:40 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>> >> > On Friday, September 17, 2021 at 8:45:39 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
>> >> >> On 9/17/2021 9:46 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>> >> >>> On Friday, September 17, 2021 at 5:49:36 AM UTC-7, William Crowell wrote:
>> >> >>>> Yes, Tom, I believe I do understand what an excise tax is. I took two semesters of tax law in law school and also some "Mandatory Continuing Legal Education" courses on tax law. But maybe you went to a better law school than I did. I went to one of the U.C. law schools. I'll bet you went to Harvard or Yale, you corker, and just haven't told us because you're so modest.
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> So if a commie and a conservative agree that the sky is blue, does that mean that the conservative is a commie?
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> Actually, I view U.S. history as a play with quite a few acts. Even though the first act was pretty phony, there is plenty of time for the play to redeem itself. And I will admit that every time I have traveled abroad, I kissed the ground I walked upon, figuratively speaking, when I returned to U.S. soil. We're just discussing our country's original sin that the revolution was ginned up (not to mention the original sin of slavery), but the real meaning of the story is probably in the salvation from that sin.
>> >> >>> Then explain to us why you think that an excise tax would not be found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court? Show us all that vast legal knowledge of yours which would put the load for paying for government upon a select and weaker minority and tell us that you're a Conservative again.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >> WTF?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Article I, sec 8:
>> >> >> https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI_S8_C1_1/
>> >> >
>> >> > Andrew, ask Jay what that means. They are saying that it is legal to use taxes as a method of regulation. It doesn't say that the government may obtain its income from a select group whose power to respond is limited.
>> >> >
>> >> > Now indeed, the means by which the government has assigned the levels of taxation more or less does the same thing with the top 10% of income earners paying something like 80% of the taxes but this in effect is the overwhelming majority of income earners since last time I checked, the bottom end of that top 10% was $116,000 or a sanitation worker that works overtime often. And most government workers.
>> >> >
>> >> 'a select group' ?
>> >> Such as whiskey producers & whiskey drinkers? Big group!
>> >>
>> >> Alcohol excise tax started on Day One under our
>> >> Constitution. You can bitch and moan but that's how it is,
>> >> then and now.
>> >>
>> >> https://www.britannica.com/event/Whiskey-Rebellion
>> >
>> >As I said, the government DOES have the ability to tax specific groups to CONTROL NEGATIVE BEHAVIOR. They do not have the ability to fund themselves only via small groups.
>> And the Resident Expert Dribbles down his shirt front Again. The U.S.
>> government has the right to levy taxes. Period. End of discussion.
>>
>> Whether these taxes are to be paid by individuals or organizations is
>> immaterial.
>>
>> --
>> Cheers,
>>
>> John B.
>
>Not immaterial to the individual or organization paying the taxes.
Thus they pay many thousands and millions of dollars to politicians in
the government to make sure some other individual and organization
pays said taxes. Not me is the rallying cry around taxes.

I'm not sure what your subject is but to rephrase my statement, "The
U.S. government has the right to levy taxes" on anything that they
damn please. There is even a levy if you want to give up your
citizenship :-)

As for the "not me" rallying cry, well yes. but I would also say that
it is a major overwhelming factor in all societies. As an example,
desertion was a problem in the Continental army during the
revolutionary war (:-)
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Friday, September 17, 2021 at 8:16:09 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Sep 2021 17:30:05 -0700 (PDT), "russell...@yahoo.com"
> <ritzann...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Friday, September 17, 2021 at 6:00:39 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
> >> On Fri, 17 Sep 2021 09:54:45 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
> >> <cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >On Friday, September 17, 2021 at 9:52:32 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
> >> >> On 9/17/2021 11:40 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> >> >> > On Friday, September 17, 2021 at 8:45:39 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
> >> >> >> On 9/17/2021 9:46 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> >> >> >>> On Friday, September 17, 2021 at 5:49:36 AM UTC-7, William Crowell wrote:
> >> >> >>>> Yes, Tom, I believe I do understand what an excise tax is. I took two semesters of tax law in law school and also some "Mandatory Continuing Legal Education" courses on tax law. But maybe you went to a better law school than I did. I went to one of the U.C. law schools. I'll bet you went to Harvard or Yale, you corker, and just haven't told us because you're so modest.
> >> >> >>>>
> >> >> >>>> So if a commie and a conservative agree that the sky is blue, does that mean that the conservative is a commie?
> >> >> >>>>
> >> >> >>>> Actually, I view U.S. history as a play with quite a few acts. Even though the first act was pretty phony, there is plenty of time for the play to redeem itself. And I will admit that every time I have traveled abroad, I kissed the ground I walked upon, figuratively speaking, when I returned to U.S. soil. We're just discussing our country's original sin that the revolution was ginned up (not to mention the original sin of slavery), but the real meaning of the story is probably in the salvation from that sin..
> >> >> >>> Then explain to us why you think that an excise tax would not be found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court? Show us all that vast legal knowledge of yours which would put the load for paying for government upon a select and weaker minority and tell us that you're a Conservative again.
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >> WTF?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Article I, sec 8:
> >> >> >> https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI_S8_C1_1/
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Andrew, ask Jay what that means. They are saying that it is legal to use taxes as a method of regulation. It doesn't say that the government may obtain its income from a select group whose power to respond is limited.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Now indeed, the means by which the government has assigned the levels of taxation more or less does the same thing with the top 10% of income earners paying something like 80% of the taxes but this in effect is the overwhelming majority of income earners since last time I checked, the bottom end of that top 10% was $116,000 or a sanitation worker that works overtime often. And most government workers.
> >> >> >
> >> >> 'a select group' ?
> >> >> Such as whiskey producers & whiskey drinkers? Big group!
> >> >>
> >> >> Alcohol excise tax started on Day One under our
> >> >> Constitution. You can bitch and moan but that's how it is,
> >> >> then and now.
> >> >>
> >> >> https://www.britannica.com/event/Whiskey-Rebellion
> >> >
> >> >As I said, the government DOES have the ability to tax specific groups to CONTROL NEGATIVE BEHAVIOR. They do not have the ability to fund themselves only via small groups.
> >> And the Resident Expert Dribbles down his shirt front Again. The U.S.
> >> government has the right to levy taxes. Period. End of discussion.
> >>
> >> Whether these taxes are to be paid by individuals or organizations is
> >> immaterial.
> >>
> >> --
> >> Cheers,
> >>
> >> John B.
> >
> >Not immaterial to the individual or organization paying the taxes.
> Thus they pay many thousands and millions of dollars to politicians in
> the government to make sure some other individual and organization
> pays said taxes. Not me is the rallying cry around taxes.
> I'm not sure what your subject is but to rephrase my statement, "The
> U.S. government has the right to levy taxes" on anything that they
> damn please. There is even a levy if you want to give up your
> citizenship :-)
>

I have looked that up. Concerning outstanding unrealized capital gains anyway. You have to pay taxes on unrealized gains. So you cannot get rich on unsold Apple or Google stock or maybe Bitcoin too, and then give up your USA citizenship and get Bermuda citizenship or Monaco citizenship, and keep all the gains. The federal government will get its cut before letting you go.

> As for the "not me" rallying cry, well yes. but I would also say that
> it is a major overwhelming factor in all societies. As an example,
> desertion was a problem in the Continental army during the
> revolutionary war (:-)

I've read tales of high desertion in the Confederate army during the Civil War. Or at least towards the end. Or when Sherman and Grant were on their marches at the end.

> --
> Cheers,
>
> John B.

On Fri, 17 Sep 2021 19:14:15 -0700 (PDT), "russellseaton1@yahoo.com"
<ritzannaseaton@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Friday, September 17, 2021 at 8:16:09 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
>> On Fri, 17 Sep 2021 17:30:05 -0700 (PDT), "russell...@yahoo.com"
>> <ritzann...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Friday, September 17, 2021 at 6:00:39 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
>> >> On Fri, 17 Sep 2021 09:54:45 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
>> >> <cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >On Friday, September 17, 2021 at 9:52:32 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
>> >> >> On 9/17/2021 11:40 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>> >> >> > On Friday, September 17, 2021 at 8:45:39 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
>> >> >> >> On 9/17/2021 9:46 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>> >> >> >>> On Friday, September 17, 2021 at 5:49:36 AM UTC-7, William Crowell wrote:
>> >> >> >>>> Yes, Tom, I believe I do understand what an excise tax is. I took two semesters of tax law in law school and also some "Mandatory Continuing Legal Education" courses on tax law. But maybe you went to a better law school than I did. I went to one of the U.C. law schools. I'll bet you went to Harvard or Yale, you corker, and just haven't told us because you're so modest.
>> >> >> >>>>
>> >> >> >>>> So if a commie and a conservative agree that the sky is blue, does that mean that the conservative is a commie?
>> >> >> >>>>
>> >> >> >>>> Actually, I view U.S. history as a play with quite a few acts. Even though the first act was pretty phony, there is plenty of time for the play to redeem itself. And I will admit that every time I have traveled abroad, I kissed the ground I walked upon, figuratively speaking, when I returned to U.S. soil. We're just discussing our country's original sin that the revolution was ginned up (not to mention the original sin of slavery), but the real meaning of the story is probably in the salvation from that sin.
>> >> >> >>> Then explain to us why you think that an excise tax would not be found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court? Show us all that vast legal knowledge of yours which would put the load for paying for government upon a select and weaker minority and tell us that you're a Conservative again.
>> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >> WTF?
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Article I, sec 8:
>> >> >> >> https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI_S8_C1_1/
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Andrew, ask Jay what that means. They are saying that it is legal to use taxes as a method of regulation. It doesn't say that the government may obtain its income from a select group whose power to respond is limited.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Now indeed, the means by which the government has assigned the levels of taxation more or less does the same thing with the top 10% of income earners paying something like 80% of the taxes but this in effect is the overwhelming majority of income earners since last time I checked, the bottom end of that top 10% was $116,000 or a sanitation worker that works overtime often. And most government workers.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> 'a select group' ?
>> >> >> Such as whiskey producers & whiskey drinkers? Big group!
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Alcohol excise tax started on Day One under our
>> >> >> Constitution. You can bitch and moan but that's how it is,
>> >> >> then and now.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> https://www.britannica.com/event/Whiskey-Rebellion
>> >> >
>> >> >As I said, the government DOES have the ability to tax specific groups to CONTROL NEGATIVE BEHAVIOR. They do not have the ability to fund themselves only via small groups.
>> >> And the Resident Expert Dribbles down his shirt front Again. The U.S.
>> >> government has the right to levy taxes. Period. End of discussion.
>> >>
>> >> Whether these taxes are to be paid by individuals or organizations is
>> >> immaterial.
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> Cheers,
>> >>
>> >> John B.
>> >
>> >Not immaterial to the individual or organization paying the taxes.
>> Thus they pay many thousands and millions of dollars to politicians in
>> the government to make sure some other individual and organization
>> pays said taxes. Not me is the rallying cry around taxes.
>> I'm not sure what your subject is but to rephrase my statement, "The
>> U.S. government has the right to levy taxes" on anything that they
>> damn please. There is even a levy if you want to give up your
>> citizenship :-)
>>
>
>I have looked that up. Concerning outstanding unrealized capital gains anyway. You have to pay taxes on unrealized gains. So you cannot get rich on unsold Apple or Google stock or maybe Bitcoin too, and then give up your USA citizenship and get Bermuda citizenship or Monaco citizenship, and keep all the gains. The federal government will get its cut before letting you go.

Well, they call it a "fee" see
https://www.greenbacktaxservices.com/faq/renounce-citizenship-free-us-taxes/

>> As for the "not me" rallying cry, well yes. but I would also say that
>> it is a major overwhelming factor in all societies. As an example,
>> desertion was a problem in the Continental army during the
>> revolutionary war (:-)
>
>I've read tales of high desertion in the Confederate army during the Civil War. Or at least towards the end. Or when Sherman and Grant were on their marches at the end.

I was using that as an example. But I do contend that as a general
statement that people have a very strong "not me" attitude toward
almost anything. Take almost anything... since we are in a bicycle
group, the idea of building separate bicycle lanes to make bicycling
safer. Most cyclists will clap their hands and shout, "Yes! Yes!". Now
add to that the sentence, "which will be paid for by a tax on
bicycles" and the same people will be jumping up and down shouting.
"No! No!" (:-)
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Saturday, September 18, 2021 at 1:30:07 AM UTC+1, russellseaton1@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Friday, September 17, 2021 at 6:00:39 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
> >
> > Whether these taxes are to be paid by individuals or organizations is
> > immaterial.
> >
> > --
> > Cheers,
> >
> > John B.
> Not immaterial to the individual or organization paying the taxes. Thus they pay many thousands and millions of dollars to politicians in the government to make sure some other individual and organization pays said taxes. Not me is the rallying cry around taxes.

Where were you two clowns educated? Or not educated, as seems the more likely case. It's standard economics that corporation taxes are double taxes on savings, on workers, on pensioners (pension funds own most shares), on shareholders and on consumers. Some are in fact triple or quadruple taxation. I can explain all this but on your record you clowns will instantly revert to your gross ignorance and stupidity.

Andre Jute
This stuff was taught to teenagers in Civics class in the American prep school where I was an exchange student, so it clearly isn't difficult to understand.

On Saturday, September 18, 2021 at 8:58:31 AM UTC-7, Andre Jute wrote:
> On Saturday, September 18, 2021 at 1:30:07 AM UTC+1, russell...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > On Friday, September 17, 2021 at 6:00:39 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
> > >
> > > Whether these taxes are to be paid by individuals or organizations is
> > > immaterial.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Cheers,
> > >
> > > John B.
> > Not immaterial to the individual or organization paying the taxes. Thus they pay many thousands and millions of dollars to politicians in the government to make sure some other individual and organization pays said taxes. Not me is the rallying cry around taxes.
> Where were you two clowns educated? Or not educated, as seems the more likely case. It's standard economics that corporation taxes are double taxes on savings, on workers, on pensioners (pension funds own most shares), on shareholders and on consumers. Some are in fact triple or quadruple taxation.. I can explain all this but on your record you clowns will instantly revert to your gross ignorance and stupidity.

Income is taxed at the corporate level and may or may not be taxed at the individual level, depending on the circumstances of the shareholder, including pension funds -- and assuming the corporation even distributes dividends.. Corporations are legal persons -- they can hold property, be criminally prosecuted and like other people, pay taxes. Normal people can organize as LLCs, S-corporations, partnerships and other disregarded tax entities. And employee wages are not double taxed since they are a deduction to the corporation.

-- Jay Beattie.

On Friday, September 17, 2021 at 3:08:47 PM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
> On 9/17/2021 4:31 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> > On Friday, September 17, 2021 at 11:44:56 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
> >> On 9/17/2021 11:54 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> >>> On Friday, September 17, 2021 at 9:52:32 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
> >>>> On 9/17/2021 11:40 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> >>>>> On Friday, September 17, 2021 at 8:45:39 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
> >>>>>> On 9/17/2021 9:46 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Friday, September 17, 2021 at 5:49:36 AM UTC-7, William Crowell wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Yes, Tom, I believe I do understand what an excise tax is. I took two semesters of tax law in law school and also some "Mandatory Continuing Legal Education" courses on tax law. But maybe you went to a better law school than I did. I went to one of the U.C. law schools. I'll bet you went to Harvard or Yale, you corker, and just haven't told us because you're so modest.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> So if a commie and a conservative agree that the sky is blue, does that mean that the conservative is a commie?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Actually, I view U.S. history as a play with quite a few acts. Even though the first act was pretty phony, there is plenty of time for the play to redeem itself. And I will admit that every time I have traveled abroad, I kissed the ground I walked upon, figuratively speaking, when I returned to U.S. soil. We're just discussing our country's original sin that the revolution was ginned up (not to mention the original sin of slavery), but the real meaning of the story is probably in the salvation from that sin.
> >>>>>>> Then explain to us why you think that an excise tax would not be found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court? Show us all that vast legal knowledge of yours which would put the load for paying for government upon a select and weaker minority and tell us that you're a Conservative again.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> WTF?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Article I, sec 8:
> >>>>>> https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI_S8_C1_1/
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Andrew, ask Jay what that means. They are saying that it is legal to use taxes as a method of regulation. It doesn't say that the government may obtain its income from a select group whose power to respond is limited.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Now indeed, the means by which the government has assigned the levels of taxation more or less does the same thing with the top 10% of income earners paying something like 80% of the taxes but this in effect is the overwhelming majority of income earners since last time I checked, the bottom end of that top 10% was $116,000 or a sanitation worker that works overtime often. And most government workers.
> >>>>>
> >>>> 'a select group' ?
> >>>> Such as whiskey producers & whiskey drinkers? Big group!
> >>>>
> >>>> Alcohol excise tax started on Day One under our
> >>>> Constitution. You can bitch and moan but that's how it is,
> >>>> then and now.
> >>>>
> >>>> https://www.britannica.com/event/Whiskey-Rebellion
> >>>
> >>> As I said, the government DOES have the ability to tax specific groups to CONTROL NEGATIVE BEHAVIOR. They do not have the ability to fund themselves only via small groups.
> >>>
> >> Peruse Art I sec 8 again and maybe rephrase that.
> >
> > Andrew, you are not a Constitutional lawyer. In the manner you're interpreting that there would have been no reason for the Supreme Court to overthrow the attempt to support the majority of the population by taxing a minority. So think about that. Taxes are legal We know that. And taxes can be exercised by virtually any means. But you may not screw some minority for your own benefit. The present means of taxation of the rich could probably be challenged in court but the rich are willing to carry the load up to this point. But we presently have a 22 Trillion dollar national debt and it isn't going to be too long before large tax increases are coming and the rich aren't going to agree to carry that much additional load.
> >
> Words have meaning.
>
> _Excise taxes_ are specifically constitutional with a whole
> bunch of Statutes for implementation and penalties.
>
> _Income taxes_ were absolutely unconstitutional and with
> good reason. The Framers understood your argument and wrote
> protections against them. Yes, The Supremes struck down
> early attempts as unconstitutional, and rightly so, both
> textually and morally. The dread 16th Amendment changed
> everything, making income taxes possible (quickly
> implemented by Statute) and forever changing the
> relationship of the individual citizen to the State. To our
> greater loss, but there it is.
>
> https://mmsbharathm7.weebly.com/uploads/1/5/7/0/15702150/117023625.JPG
>
> _Wealth tax_ as being currently fomented in the Congress is
> as unconstitutional as anything and so would require another
> Amendment. That will never happen with 30 million illegals
> voting plus an extra 2 million illegals this year for the
> next election. But make it another 5 or 10 million a few
> years on, and all bets are off. Hold on, it's going to be a
> wild ride once Americans are outvoted by 'dreamers'.

While we can argue about the manner in which the income taxes were corrupted, I believe that we agree that you cannot have government services without paying for them and that most taxes injure specific groups in an illegal manner. Excise taxes in particular since it isn't government services that are being paid for but making one specific group liable for financing the country merely from the fact that they use a specific type of goods.

On Friday, September 17, 2021 at 5:30:07 PM UTC-7, russellseaton1@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> Not immaterial to the individual or organization paying the taxes. Thus they pay many thousands and millions of dollars to politicians in the government to make sure some other individual and organization pays said taxes. Not me is the rallying cry around taxes.

That is something that has been argued since the beginning of this country when we borrowed from the French to obtain the supplies to fight a war using the French to give us a Navy we wouldn't have had otherwise. Thus this country was FOUNDED on a national debt that was repaid. The only way to do that was taxation. Early on excise taxes were paid almost entirely by the rich because no one else had any money but operated on the barter system. So the rich knew that they paid via either method.

On Saturday, September 18, 2021 at 12:12:01 PM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote:
> On Saturday, September 18, 2021 at 8:58:31 AM UTC-7, Andre Jute wrote:
> > On Saturday, September 18, 2021 at 1:30:07 AM UTC+1, russell...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > On Friday, September 17, 2021 at 6:00:39 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Whether these taxes are to be paid by individuals or organizations is
> > > > immaterial.
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Cheers,
> > > >
> > > > John B.
> > > Not immaterial to the individual or organization paying the taxes. Thus they pay many thousands and millions of dollars to politicians in the government to make sure some other individual and organization pays said taxes. Not me is the rallying cry around taxes.
> > Where were you two clowns educated? Or not educated, as seems the more likely case. It's standard economics that corporation taxes are double taxes on savings, on workers, on pensioners (pension funds own most shares), on shareholders and on consumers. Some are in fact triple or quadruple taxation. I can explain all this but on your record you clowns will instantly revert to your gross ignorance and stupidity.
> Income is taxed at the corporate level and may or may not be taxed at the individual level, depending on the circumstances of the shareholder, including pension funds -- and assuming the corporation even distributes dividends. Corporations are legal persons -- they can hold property, be criminally prosecuted and like other people, pay taxes. Normal people can organize as LLCs, S-corporations, partnerships and other disregarded tax entities. And employee wages are not double taxed since they are a deduction to the corporation.

Jay, in all but unusual cases, corporations are almost entirely double or even triple taxed on the same money. Without those stupid write-offs I really don't know what would become of most corporations.

On 9/18/2021 3:55 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> On Friday, September 17, 2021 at 3:08:47 PM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
>> On 9/17/2021 4:31 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>>> On Friday, September 17, 2021 at 11:44:56 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
>>>> On 9/17/2021 11:54 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>>>>> On Friday, September 17, 2021 at 9:52:32 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>>> On 9/17/2021 11:40 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>>>>>>> On Friday, September 17, 2021 at 8:45:39 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 9/17/2021 9:46 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Friday, September 17, 2021 at 5:49:36 AM UTC-7, William Crowell wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Yes, Tom, I believe I do understand what an excise tax is. I took two semesters of tax law in law school and also some "Mandatory Continuing Legal Education" courses on tax law. But maybe you went to a better law school than I did. I went to one of the U.C. law schools. I'll bet you went to Harvard or Yale, you corker, and just haven't told us because you're so modest.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> So if a commie and a conservative agree that the sky is blue, does that mean that the conservative is a commie?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Actually, I view U.S. history as a play with quite a few acts. Even though the first act was pretty phony, there is plenty of time for the play to redeem itself. And I will admit that every time I have traveled abroad, I kissed the ground I walked upon, figuratively speaking, when I returned to U.S. soil. We're just discussing our country's original sin that the revolution was ginned up (not to mention the original sin of slavery), but the real meaning of the story is probably in the salvation from that sin.
>>>>>>>>> Then explain to us why you think that an excise tax would not be found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court? Show us all that vast legal knowledge of yours which would put the load for paying for government upon a select and weaker minority and tell us that you're a Conservative again.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> WTF?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Article I, sec 8:
>>>>>>>> https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI_S8_C1_1/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Andrew, ask Jay what that means. They are saying that it is legal to use taxes as a method of regulation. It doesn't say that the government may obtain its income from a select group whose power to respond is limited.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Now indeed, the means by which the government has assigned the levels of taxation more or less does the same thing with the top 10% of income earners paying something like 80% of the taxes but this in effect is the overwhelming majority of income earners since last time I checked, the bottom end of that top 10% was $116,000 or a sanitation worker that works overtime often. And most government workers.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> 'a select group' ?
>>>>>> Such as whiskey producers & whiskey drinkers? Big group!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Alcohol excise tax started on Day One under our
>>>>>> Constitution. You can bitch and moan but that's how it is,
>>>>>> then and now.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://www.britannica.com/event/Whiskey-Rebellion
>>>>>
>>>>> As I said, the government DOES have the ability to tax specific groups to CONTROL NEGATIVE BEHAVIOR. They do not have the ability to fund themselves only via small groups.
>>>>>
>>>> Peruse Art I sec 8 again and maybe rephrase that.
>>>
>>> Andrew, you are not a Constitutional lawyer. In the manner you're interpreting that there would have been no reason for the Supreme Court to overthrow the attempt to support the majority of the population by taxing a minority. So think about that. Taxes are legal We know that. And taxes can be exercised by virtually any means. But you may not screw some minority for your own benefit. The present means of taxation of the rich could probably be challenged in court but the rich are willing to carry the load up to this point. But we presently have a 22 Trillion dollar national debt and it isn't going to be too long before large tax increases are coming and the rich aren't going to agree to carry that much additional load.
>>>
>> Words have meaning.
>>
>> _Excise taxes_ are specifically constitutional with a whole
>> bunch of Statutes for implementation and penalties.
>>
>> _Income taxes_ were absolutely unconstitutional and with
>> good reason. The Framers understood your argument and wrote
>> protections against them. Yes, The Supremes struck down
>> early attempts as unconstitutional, and rightly so, both
>> textually and morally. The dread 16th Amendment changed
>> everything, making income taxes possible (quickly
>> implemented by Statute) and forever changing the
>> relationship of the individual citizen to the State. To our
>> greater loss, but there it is.
>>
>> https://mmsbharathm7.weebly.com/uploads/1/5/7/0/15702150/117023625.JPG
>>
>> _Wealth tax_ as being currently fomented in the Congress is
>> as unconstitutional as anything and so would require another
>> Amendment. That will never happen with 30 million illegals
>> voting plus an extra 2 million illegals this year for the
>> next election. But make it another 5 or 10 million a few
>> years on, and all bets are off. Hold on, it's going to be a
>> wild ride once Americans are outvoted by 'dreamers'.
>
> While we can argue about the manner in which the income taxes were corrupted, I believe that we agree that you cannot have government services without paying for them and that most taxes injure specific groups in an illegal manner. Excise taxes in particular since it isn't government services that are being paid for but making one specific group liable for financing the country merely from the fact that they use a specific type of goods.
>

Bitch all you like, and there are valid criticisms of any
tax scheme, but excise taxes are not only constitutional and
legal but provided the overwhelming bulk of Treasury revenue
from 1789 through 1913. All Treasury revenue for those 124
years altogether was roughly 25 billion.

Spending less would mean lower taxes but that option is
never on the table.

--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On 9/18/2021 4:00 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> On Friday, September 17, 2021 at 5:30:07 PM UTC-7, russellseaton1@yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>> Not immaterial to the individual or organization paying the taxes. Thus they pay many thousands and millions of dollars to politicians in the government to make sure some other individual and organization pays said taxes. Not me is the rallying cry around taxes.
>
> That is something that has been argued since the beginning of this country when we borrowed from the French to obtain the supplies to fight a war using the French to give us a Navy we wouldn't have had otherwise. Thus this country was FOUNDED on a national debt that was repaid. The only way to do that was taxation. Early on excise taxes were paid almost entirely by the rich because no one else had any money but operated on the barter system. So the rich knew that they paid via either method.
>
Uh, new States were admitted under the condition that
untitled land belonged to the Federal government, which sold
much of it.

Except Texas. Sam Houston held firm on that point.

--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On Saturday, September 18, 2021 at 2:04:16 PM UTC-7, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, September 18, 2021 at 12:12:01 PM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote:
> > On Saturday, September 18, 2021 at 8:58:31 AM UTC-7, Andre Jute wrote:
> > > On Saturday, September 18, 2021 at 1:30:07 AM UTC+1, russell...@yahoo..com wrote:
> > > > On Friday, September 17, 2021 at 6:00:39 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Whether these taxes are to be paid by individuals or organizations is
> > > > > immaterial.
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Cheers,
> > > > >
> > > > > John B.
> > > > Not immaterial to the individual or organization paying the taxes. Thus they pay many thousands and millions of dollars to politicians in the government to make sure some other individual and organization pays said taxes. Not me is the rallying cry around taxes.
> > > Where were you two clowns educated? Or not educated, as seems the more likely case. It's standard economics that corporation taxes are double taxes on savings, on workers, on pensioners (pension funds own most shares), on shareholders and on consumers. Some are in fact triple or quadruple taxation. I can explain all this but on your record you clowns will instantly revert to your gross ignorance and stupidity.
> > Income is taxed at the corporate level and may or may not be taxed at the individual level, depending on the circumstances of the shareholder, including pension funds -- and assuming the corporation even distributes dividends. Corporations are legal persons -- they can hold property, be criminally prosecuted and like other people, pay taxes. Normal people can organize as LLCs, S-corporations, partnerships and other disregarded tax entities. And employee wages are not double taxed since they are a deduction to the corporation.
> Jay, in all but unusual cases, corporations are almost entirely double or even triple taxed on the same money. Without those stupid write-offs I really don't know what would become of most corporations.

Tom, no they are not. Corporations are taxed once for their income just like individuals. Post-tax income may be taxed again when distributed to shareholders, depending on the shareholder's tax circumstances. Corporations often do not make distributions and use post-tax income for capital improvements, which they can deduct, usually over time. Corporations may also use earnings to benefit shareholders in other ways like stock buy-backs that drive up stock value without creating current income to shareholders. "Stupid write-offs" are available to all businesses, corporations and proprietorships -- and individuals.

-- Jay Beattie.

On Saturday, September 18, 2021 at 2:39:05 PM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
> On 9/18/2021 3:55 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> > On Friday, September 17, 2021 at 3:08:47 PM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
> >> On 9/17/2021 4:31 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> >>> On Friday, September 17, 2021 at 11:44:56 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
> >>>> On 9/17/2021 11:54 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> >>>>> On Friday, September 17, 2021 at 9:52:32 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
> >>>>>> On 9/17/2021 11:40 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Friday, September 17, 2021 at 8:45:39 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 9/17/2021 9:46 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Friday, September 17, 2021 at 5:49:36 AM UTC-7, William Crowell wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> Yes, Tom, I believe I do understand what an excise tax is. I took two semesters of tax law in law school and also some "Mandatory Continuing Legal Education" courses on tax law. But maybe you went to a better law school than I did. I went to one of the U.C. law schools. I'll bet you went to Harvard or Yale, you corker, and just haven't told us because you're so modest.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> So if a commie and a conservative agree that the sky is blue, does that mean that the conservative is a commie?
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Actually, I view U.S. history as a play with quite a few acts. Even though the first act was pretty phony, there is plenty of time for the play to redeem itself. And I will admit that every time I have traveled abroad, I kissed the ground I walked upon, figuratively speaking, when I returned to U.S. soil. We're just discussing our country's original sin that the revolution was ginned up (not to mention the original sin of slavery), but the real meaning of the story is probably in the salvation from that sin..
> >>>>>>>>> Then explain to us why you think that an excise tax would not be found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court? Show us all that vast legal knowledge of yours which would put the load for paying for government upon a select and weaker minority and tell us that you're a Conservative again.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> WTF?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Article I, sec 8:
> >>>>>>>> https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI_S8_C1_1/
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Andrew, ask Jay what that means. They are saying that it is legal to use taxes as a method of regulation. It doesn't say that the government may obtain its income from a select group whose power to respond is limited.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Now indeed, the means by which the government has assigned the levels of taxation more or less does the same thing with the top 10% of income earners paying something like 80% of the taxes but this in effect is the overwhelming majority of income earners since last time I checked, the bottom end of that top 10% was $116,000 or a sanitation worker that works overtime often. And most government workers.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> 'a select group' ?
> >>>>>> Such as whiskey producers & whiskey drinkers? Big group!
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Alcohol excise tax started on Day One under our
> >>>>>> Constitution. You can bitch and moan but that's how it is,
> >>>>>> then and now.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> https://www.britannica.com/event/Whiskey-Rebellion
> >>>>>
> >>>>> As I said, the government DOES have the ability to tax specific groups to CONTROL NEGATIVE BEHAVIOR. They do not have the ability to fund themselves only via small groups.
> >>>>>
> >>>> Peruse Art I sec 8 again and maybe rephrase that.
> >>>
> >>> Andrew, you are not a Constitutional lawyer. In the manner you're interpreting that there would have been no reason for the Supreme Court to overthrow the attempt to support the majority of the population by taxing a minority. So think about that. Taxes are legal We know that. And taxes can be exercised by virtually any means. But you may not screw some minority for your own benefit. The present means of taxation of the rich could probably be challenged in court but the rich are willing to carry the load up to this point. But we presently have a 22 Trillion dollar national debt and it isn't going to be too long before large tax increases are coming and the rich aren't going to agree to carry that much additional load.
> >>>
> >> Words have meaning.
> >>
> >> _Excise taxes_ are specifically constitutional with a whole
> >> bunch of Statutes for implementation and penalties.
> >>
> >> _Income taxes_ were absolutely unconstitutional and with
> >> good reason. The Framers understood your argument and wrote
> >> protections against them. Yes, The Supremes struck down
> >> early attempts as unconstitutional, and rightly so, both
> >> textually and morally. The dread 16th Amendment changed
> >> everything, making income taxes possible (quickly
> >> implemented by Statute) and forever changing the
> >> relationship of the individual citizen to the State. To our
> >> greater loss, but there it is.
> >>
> >> https://mmsbharathm7.weebly.com/uploads/1/5/7/0/15702150/117023625.JPG
> >>
> >> _Wealth tax_ as being currently fomented in the Congress is
> >> as unconstitutional as anything and so would require another
> >> Amendment. That will never happen with 30 million illegals
> >> voting plus an extra 2 million illegals this year for the
> >> next election. But make it another 5 or 10 million a few
> >> years on, and all bets are off. Hold on, it's going to be a
> >> wild ride once Americans are outvoted by 'dreamers'.
> >
> > While we can argue about the manner in which the income taxes were corrupted, I believe that we agree that you cannot have government services without paying for them and that most taxes injure specific groups in an illegal manner. Excise taxes in particular since it isn't government services that are being paid for but making one specific group liable for financing the country merely from the fact that they use a specific type of goods.
> >
> Bitch all you like, and there are valid criticisms of any
> tax scheme, but excise taxes are not only constitutional and
> legal but provided the overwhelming bulk of Treasury revenue
> from 1789 through 1913. All Treasury revenue for those 124
> years altogether was roughly 25 billion.
>
> Spending less would mean lower taxes but that option is
> never on the table
..
Tariffs and use taxes were also big. Tariffs and excise taxes get passed on in the cost of goods, and the taxes are paid indirectly by purchases, whether purchase are made in money or trade. If one bartered for refined sugar, legal alcohol or gun powder, the parties to the exchange paid excise taxes, so the notion that only the rich paid taxes is wrong.

-- Jay Beattie.

On Saturday, September 18, 2021 at 2:42:01 PM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
> On 9/18/2021 4:00 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> > On Friday, September 17, 2021 at 5:30:07 PM UTC-7, russell...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >>
> >> Not immaterial to the individual or organization paying the taxes. Thus they pay many thousands and millions of dollars to politicians in the government to make sure some other individual and organization pays said taxes.. Not me is the rallying cry around taxes.
> >
> > That is something that has been argued since the beginning of this country when we borrowed from the French to obtain the supplies to fight a war using the French to give us a Navy we wouldn't have had otherwise. Thus this country was FOUNDED on a national debt that was repaid. The only way to do that was taxation. Early on excise taxes were paid almost entirely by the rich because no one else had any money but operated on the barter system. So the rich knew that they paid via either method.
> >
> Uh, new States were admitted under the condition that
> untitled land belonged to the Federal government, which sold
> much of it.
>
> Except Texas. Sam Houston held firm on that point.

BLM VERY seldom sells any land. They have been renting it to people for 100 years.

On Saturday, September 18, 2021 at 2:48:40 PM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote:
> On Saturday, September 18, 2021 at 2:39:05 PM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
> > On 9/18/2021 3:55 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> > > On Friday, September 17, 2021 at 3:08:47 PM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
> > >> On 9/17/2021 4:31 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> > >>> On Friday, September 17, 2021 at 11:44:56 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
> > >>>> On 9/17/2021 11:54 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> > >>>>> On Friday, September 17, 2021 at 9:52:32 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
> > >>>>>> On 9/17/2021 11:40 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> > >>>>>>> On Friday, September 17, 2021 at 8:45:39 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
> > >>>>>>>> On 9/17/2021 9:46 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>> On Friday, September 17, 2021 at 5:49:36 AM UTC-7, William Crowell wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>> Yes, Tom, I believe I do understand what an excise tax is. I took two semesters of tax law in law school and also some "Mandatory Continuing Legal Education" courses on tax law. But maybe you went to a better law school than I did. I went to one of the U.C. law schools. I'll bet you went to Harvard or Yale, you corker, and just haven't told us because you're so modest.
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> So if a commie and a conservative agree that the sky is blue, does that mean that the conservative is a commie?
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> Actually, I view U.S. history as a play with quite a few acts. Even though the first act was pretty phony, there is plenty of time for the play to redeem itself. And I will admit that every time I have traveled abroad, I kissed the ground I walked upon, figuratively speaking, when I returned to U.S. soil. We're just discussing our country's original sin that the revolution was ginned up (not to mention the original sin of slavery), but the real meaning of the story is probably in the salvation from that sin.
> > >>>>>>>>> Then explain to us why you think that an excise tax would not be found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court? Show us all that vast legal knowledge of yours which would put the load for paying for government upon a select and weaker minority and tell us that you're a Conservative again..
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> WTF?
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> Article I, sec 8:
> > >>>>>>>> https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI_S8_C1_1/
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> Andrew, ask Jay what that means. They are saying that it is legal to use taxes as a method of regulation. It doesn't say that the government may obtain its income from a select group whose power to respond is limited.
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> Now indeed, the means by which the government has assigned the levels of taxation more or less does the same thing with the top 10% of income earners paying something like 80% of the taxes but this in effect is the overwhelming majority of income earners since last time I checked, the bottom end of that top 10% was $116,000 or a sanitation worker that works overtime often. And most government workers.
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>> 'a select group' ?
> > >>>>>> Such as whiskey producers & whiskey drinkers? Big group!
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Alcohol excise tax started on Day One under our
> > >>>>>> Constitution. You can bitch and moan but that's how it is,
> > >>>>>> then and now.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> https://www.britannica.com/event/Whiskey-Rebellion
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> As I said, the government DOES have the ability to tax specific groups to CONTROL NEGATIVE BEHAVIOR. They do not have the ability to fund themselves only via small groups.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>> Peruse Art I sec 8 again and maybe rephrase that.
> > >>>
> > >>> Andrew, you are not a Constitutional lawyer. In the manner you're interpreting that there would have been no reason for the Supreme Court to overthrow the attempt to support the majority of the population by taxing a minority. So think about that. Taxes are legal We know that. And taxes can be exercised by virtually any means. But you may not screw some minority for your own benefit. The present means of taxation of the rich could probably be challenged in court but the rich are willing to carry the load up to this point. But we presently have a 22 Trillion dollar national debt and it isn't going to be too long before large tax increases are coming and the rich aren't going to agree to carry that much additional load.
> > >>>
> > >> Words have meaning.
> > >>
> > >> _Excise taxes_ are specifically constitutional with a whole
> > >> bunch of Statutes for implementation and penalties.
> > >>
> > >> _Income taxes_ were absolutely unconstitutional and with
> > >> good reason. The Framers understood your argument and wrote
> > >> protections against them. Yes, The Supremes struck down
> > >> early attempts as unconstitutional, and rightly so, both
> > >> textually and morally. The dread 16th Amendment changed
> > >> everything, making income taxes possible (quickly
> > >> implemented by Statute) and forever changing the
> > >> relationship of the individual citizen to the State. To our
> > >> greater loss, but there it is.
> > >>
> > >> https://mmsbharathm7.weebly.com/uploads/1/5/7/0/15702150/117023625.JPG
> > >>
> > >> _Wealth tax_ as being currently fomented in the Congress is
> > >> as unconstitutional as anything and so would require another
> > >> Amendment. That will never happen with 30 million illegals
> > >> voting plus an extra 2 million illegals this year for the
> > >> next election. But make it another 5 or 10 million a few
> > >> years on, and all bets are off. Hold on, it's going to be a
> > >> wild ride once Americans are outvoted by 'dreamers'.
> > >
> > > While we can argue about the manner in which the income taxes were corrupted, I believe that we agree that you cannot have government services without paying for them and that most taxes injure specific groups in an illegal manner. Excise taxes in particular since it isn't government services that are being paid for but making one specific group liable for financing the country merely from the fact that they use a specific type of goods.
> > >
> > Bitch all you like, and there are valid criticisms of any
> > tax scheme, but excise taxes are not only constitutional and
> > legal but provided the overwhelming bulk of Treasury revenue
> > from 1789 through 1913. All Treasury revenue for those 124
> > years altogether was roughly 25 billion.
> >
> > Spending less would mean lower taxes but that option is
> > never on the table
> .
> Tariffs and use taxes were also big. Tariffs and excise taxes get passed on in the cost of goods, and the taxes are paid indirectly by purchases, whether purchase are made in money or trade. If one bartered for refined sugar, legal alcohol or gun powder, the parties to the exchange paid excise taxes, so the notion that only the rich paid taxes is wrong.

Explain how the government knows what you barter or trade for when 98% of that is by individuals without any tracking of their economies?

On Saturday, September 18, 2021 at 2:55:31 PM UTC-7, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, September 18, 2021 at 2:48:40 PM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote:
> > On Saturday, September 18, 2021 at 2:39:05 PM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
> > > On 9/18/2021 3:55 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> > > > On Friday, September 17, 2021 at 3:08:47 PM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
> > > >> On 9/17/2021 4:31 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> > > >>> On Friday, September 17, 2021 at 11:44:56 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
> > > >>>> On 9/17/2021 11:54 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> > > >>>>> On Friday, September 17, 2021 at 9:52:32 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
> > > >>>>>> On 9/17/2021 11:40 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> > > >>>>>>> On Friday, September 17, 2021 at 8:45:39 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>> On 9/17/2021 9:46 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>> On Friday, September 17, 2021 at 5:49:36 AM UTC-7, William Crowell wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>>> Yes, Tom, I believe I do understand what an excise tax is. I took two semesters of tax law in law school and also some "Mandatory Continuing Legal Education" courses on tax law. But maybe you went to a better law school than I did. I went to one of the U.C. law schools. I'll bet you went to Harvard or Yale, you corker, and just haven't told us because you're so modest.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>> So if a commie and a conservative agree that the sky is blue, does that mean that the conservative is a commie?
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>> Actually, I view U.S. history as a play with quite a few acts. Even though the first act was pretty phony, there is plenty of time for the play to redeem itself. And I will admit that every time I have traveled abroad, I kissed the ground I walked upon, figuratively speaking, when I returned to U.S. soil. We're just discussing our country's original sin that the revolution was ginned up (not to mention the original sin of slavery), but the real meaning of the story is probably in the salvation from that sin.
> > > >>>>>>>>> Then explain to us why you think that an excise tax would not be found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court? Show us all that vast legal knowledge of yours which would put the load for paying for government upon a select and weaker minority and tell us that you're a Conservative again.
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> WTF?
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> Article I, sec 8:
> > > >>>>>>>> https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI_S8_C1_1/
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> Andrew, ask Jay what that means. They are saying that it is legal to use taxes as a method of regulation. It doesn't say that the government may obtain its income from a select group whose power to respond is limited.
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> Now indeed, the means by which the government has assigned the levels of taxation more or less does the same thing with the top 10% of income earners paying something like 80% of the taxes but this in effect is the overwhelming majority of income earners since last time I checked, the bottom end of that top 10% was $116,000 or a sanitation worker that works overtime often. And most government workers.
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> 'a select group' ?
> > > >>>>>> Such as whiskey producers & whiskey drinkers? Big group!
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> Alcohol excise tax started on Day One under our
> > > >>>>>> Constitution. You can bitch and moan but that's how it is,
> > > >>>>>> then and now.
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> https://www.britannica.com/event/Whiskey-Rebellion
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> As I said, the government DOES have the ability to tax specific groups to CONTROL NEGATIVE BEHAVIOR. They do not have the ability to fund themselves only via small groups.
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>> Peruse Art I sec 8 again and maybe rephrase that.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Andrew, you are not a Constitutional lawyer. In the manner you're interpreting that there would have been no reason for the Supreme Court to overthrow the attempt to support the majority of the population by taxing a minority. So think about that. Taxes are legal We know that. And taxes can be exercised by virtually any means. But you may not screw some minority for your own benefit. The present means of taxation of the rich could probably be challenged in court but the rich are willing to carry the load up to this point. But we presently have a 22 Trillion dollar national debt and it isn't going to be too long before large tax increases are coming and the rich aren't going to agree to carry that much additional load.
> > > >>>
> > > >> Words have meaning.
> > > >>
> > > >> _Excise taxes_ are specifically constitutional with a whole
> > > >> bunch of Statutes for implementation and penalties.
> > > >>
> > > >> _Income taxes_ were absolutely unconstitutional and with
> > > >> good reason. The Framers understood your argument and wrote
> > > >> protections against them. Yes, The Supremes struck down
> > > >> early attempts as unconstitutional, and rightly so, both
> > > >> textually and morally. The dread 16th Amendment changed
> > > >> everything, making income taxes possible (quickly
> > > >> implemented by Statute) and forever changing the
> > > >> relationship of the individual citizen to the State. To our
> > > >> greater loss, but there it is.
> > > >>
> > > >> https://mmsbharathm7.weebly.com/uploads/1/5/7/0/15702150/117023625..JPG
> > > >>
> > > >> _Wealth tax_ as being currently fomented in the Congress is
> > > >> as unconstitutional as anything and so would require another
> > > >> Amendment. That will never happen with 30 million illegals
> > > >> voting plus an extra 2 million illegals this year for the
> > > >> next election. But make it another 5 or 10 million a few
> > > >> years on, and all bets are off. Hold on, it's going to be a
> > > >> wild ride once Americans are outvoted by 'dreamers'.
> > > >
> > > > While we can argue about the manner in which the income taxes were corrupted, I believe that we agree that you cannot have government services without paying for them and that most taxes injure specific groups in an illegal manner. Excise taxes in particular since it isn't government services that are being paid for but making one specific group liable for financing the country merely from the fact that they use a specific type of goods.
> > > >
> > > Bitch all you like, and there are valid criticisms of any
> > > tax scheme, but excise taxes are not only constitutional and
> > > legal but provided the overwhelming bulk of Treasury revenue
> > > from 1789 through 1913. All Treasury revenue for those 124
> > > years altogether was roughly 25 billion.
> > >
> > > Spending less would mean lower taxes but that option is
> > > never on the table
> > .
> > Tariffs and use taxes were also big. Tariffs and excise taxes get passed on in the cost of goods, and the taxes are paid indirectly by purchases, whether purchase are made in money or trade. If one bartered for refined sugar, legal alcohol or gun powder, the parties to the exchange paid excise taxes, so the notion that only the rich paid taxes is wrong.
> Explain how the government knows what you barter or trade for when 98% of that is by individuals without any tracking of their economies?

Now pay attention: I buy a bag of refined sugar from ye olde dry good store. The price includes an excise tax, which is collected by the sugar distributor and passed on by the seller in the price of the sugar. I then trade that sugar to Zeek the beaver trapper for some pelts, and to get equivalent value to what I spent on the sugar, I want two pelts instead of one -- or one beaver pelt and a nutria pelt or some willow bark for the headache your are giving me. If I pay more for sugar, I expect more in trade -- and the person making the trade is "paying" more -- and indirectly paying the excise tax or tariff.

On Saturday, September 18, 2021 at 3:21:24 PM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote:
> On Saturday, September 18, 2021 at 2:55:31 PM UTC-7, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Saturday, September 18, 2021 at 2:48:40 PM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote:
> > > On Saturday, September 18, 2021 at 2:39:05 PM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
> > > > On 9/18/2021 3:55 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> > > > > On Friday, September 17, 2021 at 3:08:47 PM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
> > > > >> On 9/17/2021 4:31 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> > > > >>> On Friday, September 17, 2021 at 11:44:56 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
> > > > >>>> On 9/17/2021 11:54 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> > > > >>>>> On Friday, September 17, 2021 at 9:52:32 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
> > > > >>>>>> On 9/17/2021 11:40 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>> On Friday, September 17, 2021 at 8:45:39 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>>> On 9/17/2021 9:46 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>>>> On Friday, September 17, 2021 at 5:49:36 AM UTC-7, William Crowell wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> Yes, Tom, I believe I do understand what an excise tax is. I took two semesters of tax law in law school and also some "Mandatory Continuing Legal Education" courses on tax law. But maybe you went to a better law school than I did. I went to one of the U.C. law schools. I'll bet you went to Harvard or Yale, you corker, and just haven't told us because you're so modest.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> So if a commie and a conservative agree that the sky is blue, does that mean that the conservative is a commie?
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> Actually, I view U.S. history as a play with quite a few acts. Even though the first act was pretty phony, there is plenty of time for the play to redeem itself. And I will admit that every time I have traveled abroad, I kissed the ground I walked upon, figuratively speaking, when I returned to U.S. soil. We're just discussing our country's original sin that the revolution was ginned up (not to mention the original sin of slavery), but the real meaning of the story is probably in the salvation from that sin.
> > > > >>>>>>>>> Then explain to us why you think that an excise tax would not be found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court? Show us all that vast legal knowledge of yours which would put the load for paying for government upon a select and weaker minority and tell us that you're a Conservative again.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>> WTF?
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>> Article I, sec 8:
> > > > >>>>>>>> https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI_S8_C1_1/
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>> Andrew, ask Jay what that means. They are saying that it is legal to use taxes as a method of regulation. It doesn't say that the government may obtain its income from a select group whose power to respond is limited.
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>> Now indeed, the means by which the government has assigned the levels of taxation more or less does the same thing with the top 10% of income earners paying something like 80% of the taxes but this in effect is the overwhelming majority of income earners since last time I checked, the bottom end of that top 10% was $116,000 or a sanitation worker that works overtime often. And most government workers.
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> 'a select group' ?
> > > > >>>>>> Such as whiskey producers & whiskey drinkers? Big group!
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> Alcohol excise tax started on Day One under our
> > > > >>>>>> Constitution. You can bitch and moan but that's how it is,
> > > > >>>>>> then and now.
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> https://www.britannica.com/event/Whiskey-Rebellion
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>> As I said, the government DOES have the ability to tax specific groups to CONTROL NEGATIVE BEHAVIOR. They do not have the ability to fund themselves only via small groups.
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>> Peruse Art I sec 8 again and maybe rephrase that.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Andrew, you are not a Constitutional lawyer. In the manner you're interpreting that there would have been no reason for the Supreme Court to overthrow the attempt to support the majority of the population by taxing a minority. So think about that. Taxes are legal We know that. And taxes can be exercised by virtually any means. But you may not screw some minority for your own benefit. The present means of taxation of the rich could probably be challenged in court but the rich are willing to carry the load up to this point. But we presently have a 22 Trillion dollar national debt and it isn't going to be too long before large tax increases are coming and the rich aren't going to agree to carry that much additional load.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >> Words have meaning.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> _Excise taxes_ are specifically constitutional with a whole
> > > > >> bunch of Statutes for implementation and penalties.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> _Income taxes_ were absolutely unconstitutional and with
> > > > >> good reason. The Framers understood your argument and wrote
> > > > >> protections against them. Yes, The Supremes struck down
> > > > >> early attempts as unconstitutional, and rightly so, both
> > > > >> textually and morally. The dread 16th Amendment changed
> > > > >> everything, making income taxes possible (quickly
> > > > >> implemented by Statute) and forever changing the
> > > > >> relationship of the individual citizen to the State. To our
> > > > >> greater loss, but there it is.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> https://mmsbharathm7.weebly.com/uploads/1/5/7/0/15702150/117023625.JPG
> > > > >>
> > > > >> _Wealth tax_ as being currently fomented in the Congress is
> > > > >> as unconstitutional as anything and so would require another
> > > > >> Amendment. That will never happen with 30 million illegals
> > > > >> voting plus an extra 2 million illegals this year for the
> > > > >> next election. But make it another 5 or 10 million a few
> > > > >> years on, and all bets are off. Hold on, it's going to be a
> > > > >> wild ride once Americans are outvoted by 'dreamers'.
> > > > >
> > > > > While we can argue about the manner in which the income taxes were corrupted, I believe that we agree that you cannot have government services without paying for them and that most taxes injure specific groups in an illegal manner. Excise taxes in particular since it isn't government services that are being paid for but making one specific group liable for financing the country merely from the fact that they use a specific type of goods..
> > > > >
> > > > Bitch all you like, and there are valid criticisms of any
> > > > tax scheme, but excise taxes are not only constitutional and
> > > > legal but provided the overwhelming bulk of Treasury revenue
> > > > from 1789 through 1913. All Treasury revenue for those 124
> > > > years altogether was roughly 25 billion.
> > > >
> > > > Spending less would mean lower taxes but that option is
> > > > never on the table
> > > .
> > > Tariffs and use taxes were also big. Tariffs and excise taxes get passed on in the cost of goods, and the taxes are paid indirectly by purchases, whether purchase are made in money or trade. If one bartered for refined sugar, legal alcohol or gun powder, the parties to the exchange paid excise taxes, so the notion that only the rich paid taxes is wrong.
> > Explain how the government knows what you barter or trade for when 98% of that is by individuals without any tracking of their economies?
> Now pay attention: I buy a bag of refined sugar from ye olde dry good store. The price includes an excise tax, which is collected by the sugar distributor and passed on by the seller in the price of the sugar. I then trade that sugar to Zeek the beaver trapper for some pelts, and to get equivalent value to what I spent on the sugar, I want two pelts instead of one -- or one beaver pelt and a nutria pelt or some willow bark for the headache your are giving me. If I pay more for sugar, I expect more in trade -- and the person making the trade is "paying" more -- and indirectly paying the excise tax or tariff.
>
> You imagine an economy that did not involve manufactured or imported goods, which was never he case in the US. People were not making rifles in their home forges and trading them to other people. They were imported along with tea, sugar, alcohol (rum) and other goods. BTW, this is also why the barter economy kicked the bucket early in American history. It only works when both parties have something the other wants. It is super inefficient. With money, you can buy whatever you want. Screw the beaver pelts.

On Sat, 18 Sep 2021 14:55:29 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
<cyclintom@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Saturday, September 18, 2021 at 2:48:40 PM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote:
>> On Saturday, September 18, 2021 at 2:39:05 PM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
>> > On 9/18/2021 3:55 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>> > > On Friday, September 17, 2021 at 3:08:47 PM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
>> > >> On 9/17/2021 4:31 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>> > >>> On Friday, September 17, 2021 at 11:44:56 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
>> > >>>> On 9/17/2021 11:54 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>> > >>>>> On Friday, September 17, 2021 at 9:52:32 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
>> > >>>>>> On 9/17/2021 11:40 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>> > >>>>>>> On Friday, September 17, 2021 at 8:45:39 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
>> > >>>>>>>> On 9/17/2021 9:46 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>> > >>>>>>>>> On Friday, September 17, 2021 at 5:49:36 AM UTC-7, William Crowell wrote:
>> > >>>>>>>>>> Yes, Tom, I believe I do understand what an excise tax is. I took two semesters of tax law in law school and also some "Mandatory Continuing Legal Education" courses on tax law. But maybe you went to a better law school than I did. I went to one of the U.C. law schools. I'll bet you went to Harvard or Yale, you corker, and just haven't told us because you're so modest.
>> > >>>>>>>>>>
>> > >>>>>>>>>> So if a commie and a conservative agree that the sky is blue, does that mean that the conservative is a commie?
>> > >>>>>>>>>>
>> > >>>>>>>>>> Actually, I view U.S. history as a play with quite a few acts. Even though the first act was pretty phony, there is plenty of time for the play to redeem itself. And I will admit that every time I have traveled abroad, I kissed the ground I walked upon, figuratively speaking, when I returned to U.S. soil. We're just discussing our country's original sin that the revolution was ginned up (not to mention the original sin of slavery), but the real meaning of the story is probably in the salvation from that sin.
>> > >>>>>>>>> Then explain to us why you think that an excise tax would not be found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court? Show us all that vast legal knowledge of yours which would put the load for paying for government upon a select and weaker minority and tell us that you're a Conservative again.
>> > >>>>>>>>>
>> > >>>>>>>> WTF?
>> > >>>>>>>>
>> > >>>>>>>> Article I, sec 8:
>> > >>>>>>>> https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI_S8_C1_1/
>> > >>>>>>>
>> > >>>>>>> Andrew, ask Jay what that means. They are saying that it is legal to use taxes as a method of regulation. It doesn't say that the government may obtain its income from a select group whose power to respond is limited.
>> > >>>>>>>
>> > >>>>>>> Now indeed, the means by which the government has assigned the levels of taxation more or less does the same thing with the top 10% of income earners paying something like 80% of the taxes but this in effect is the overwhelming majority of income earners since last time I checked, the bottom end of that top 10% was $116,000 or a sanitation worker that works overtime often. And most government workers.
>> > >>>>>>>
>> > >>>>>> 'a select group' ?
>> > >>>>>> Such as whiskey producers & whiskey drinkers? Big group!
>> > >>>>>>
>> > >>>>>> Alcohol excise tax started on Day One under our
>> > >>>>>> Constitution. You can bitch and moan but that's how it is,
>> > >>>>>> then and now.
>> > >>>>>>
>> > >>>>>> https://www.britannica.com/event/Whiskey-Rebellion
>> > >>>>>
>> > >>>>> As I said, the government DOES have the ability to tax specific groups to CONTROL NEGATIVE BEHAVIOR. They do not have the ability to fund themselves only via small groups.
>> > >>>>>
>> > >>>> Peruse Art I sec 8 again and maybe rephrase that.
>> > >>>
>> > >>> Andrew, you are not a Constitutional lawyer. In the manner you're interpreting that there would have been no reason for the Supreme Court to overthrow the attempt to support the majority of the population by taxing a minority. So think about that. Taxes are legal We know that. And taxes can be exercised by virtually any means. But you may not screw some minority for your own benefit. The present means of taxation of the rich could probably be challenged in court but the rich are willing to carry the load up to this point. But we presently have a 22 Trillion dollar national debt and it isn't going to be too long before large tax increases are coming and the rich aren't going to agree to carry that much additional load.
>> > >>>
>> > >> Words have meaning.
>> > >>
>> > >> _Excise taxes_ are specifically constitutional with a whole
>> > >> bunch of Statutes for implementation and penalties.
>> > >>
>> > >> _Income taxes_ were absolutely unconstitutional and with
>> > >> good reason. The Framers understood your argument and wrote
>> > >> protections against them. Yes, The Supremes struck down
>> > >> early attempts as unconstitutional, and rightly so, both
>> > >> textually and morally. The dread 16th Amendment changed
>> > >> everything, making income taxes possible (quickly
>> > >> implemented by Statute) and forever changing the
>> > >> relationship of the individual citizen to the State. To our
>> > >> greater loss, but there it is.
>> > >>
>> > >> https://mmsbharathm7.weebly.com/uploads/1/5/7/0/15702150/117023625.JPG
>> > >>
>> > >> _Wealth tax_ as being currently fomented in the Congress is
>> > >> as unconstitutional as anything and so would require another
>> > >> Amendment. That will never happen with 30 million illegals
>> > >> voting plus an extra 2 million illegals this year for the
>> > >> next election. But make it another 5 or 10 million a few
>> > >> years on, and all bets are off. Hold on, it's going to be a
>> > >> wild ride once Americans are outvoted by 'dreamers'.
>> > >
>> > > While we can argue about the manner in which the income taxes were corrupted, I believe that we agree that you cannot have government services without paying for them and that most taxes injure specific groups in an illegal manner. Excise taxes in particular since it isn't government services that are being paid for but making one specific group liable for financing the country merely from the fact that they use a specific type of goods.
>> > >
>> > Bitch all you like, and there are valid criticisms of any
>> > tax scheme, but excise taxes are not only constitutional and
>> > legal but provided the overwhelming bulk of Treasury revenue
>> > from 1789 through 1913. All Treasury revenue for those 124
>> > years altogether was roughly 25 billion.
>> >
>> > Spending less would mean lower taxes but that option is
>> > never on the table
>> .
>> Tariffs and use taxes were also big. Tariffs and excise taxes get passed on in the cost of goods, and the taxes are paid indirectly by purchases, whether purchase are made in money or trade. If one bartered for refined sugar, legal alcohol or gun powder, the parties to the exchange paid excise taxes, so the notion that only the rich paid taxes is wrong.
>
>Explain how the government knows what you barter or trade for when 98% of that is by individuals without any tracking of their economies?

Tommy, you just keep exposing your ignorance. The Whiskey Rebellion of
1791 - 94 was against a excise tax levied on distilled beverages. This
tax was paid by the manufacturer and passed along to the customer in
the form of an increase in price. So, in effect, when one bought
whiskey, one paid tax..

Now, granted, this may seem rather complex, to you, but it is a rather
simple formula to anyone that can count.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Sat, 18 Sep 2021 15:55:40 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
<cyclintom@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Saturday, September 18, 2021 at 3:21:24 PM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote:
>> On Saturday, September 18, 2021 at 2:55:31 PM UTC-7, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
>> > On Saturday, September 18, 2021 at 2:48:40 PM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote:
>> > > On Saturday, September 18, 2021 at 2:39:05 PM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
>> > > > On 9/18/2021 3:55 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>> > > > > On Friday, September 17, 2021 at 3:08:47 PM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
>> > > > >> On 9/17/2021 4:31 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>> > > > >>> On Friday, September 17, 2021 at 11:44:56 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
>> > > > >>>> On 9/17/2021 11:54 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>> > > > >>>>> On Friday, September 17, 2021 at 9:52:32 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
>> > > > >>>>>> On 9/17/2021 11:40 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>> > > > >>>>>>> On Friday, September 17, 2021 at 8:45:39 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
>> > > > >>>>>>>> On 9/17/2021 9:46 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>> > > > >>>>>>>>> On Friday, September 17, 2021 at 5:49:36 AM UTC-7, William Crowell wrote:
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> Yes, Tom, I believe I do understand what an excise tax is. I took two semesters of tax law in law school and also some "Mandatory Continuing Legal Education" courses on tax law. But maybe you went to a better law school than I did. I went to one of the U.C. law schools. I'll bet you went to Harvard or Yale, you corker, and just haven't told us because you're so modest.
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> So if a commie and a conservative agree that the sky is blue, does that mean that the conservative is a commie?
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> Actually, I view U.S. history as a play with quite a few acts. Even though the first act was pretty phony, there is plenty of time for the play to redeem itself. And I will admit that every time I have traveled abroad, I kissed the ground I walked upon, figuratively speaking, when I returned to U.S. soil. We're just discussing our country's original sin that the revolution was ginned up (not to mention the original sin of slavery), but the real meaning of the story is probably in the salvation from that sin.
>> > > > >>>>>>>>> Then explain to us why you think that an excise tax would not be found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court? Show us all that vast legal knowledge of yours which would put the load for paying for government upon a select and weaker minority and tell us that you're a Conservative again.
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>>> WTF?
>> > > > >>>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>>> Article I, sec 8:
>> > > > >>>>>>>> https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI_S8_C1_1/
>> > > > >>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>> Andrew, ask Jay what that means. They are saying that it is legal to use taxes as a method of regulation. It doesn't say that the government may obtain its income from a select group whose power to respond is limited.
>> > > > >>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>> Now indeed, the means by which the government has assigned the levels of taxation more or less does the same thing with the top 10% of income earners paying something like 80% of the taxes but this in effect is the overwhelming majority of income earners since last time I checked, the bottom end of that top 10% was $116,000 or a sanitation worker that works overtime often. And most government workers.
>> > > > >>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>> 'a select group' ?
>> > > > >>>>>> Such as whiskey producers & whiskey drinkers? Big group!
>> > > > >>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>> Alcohol excise tax started on Day One under our
>> > > > >>>>>> Constitution. You can bitch and moan but that's how it is,
>> > > > >>>>>> then and now.
>> > > > >>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>> https://www.britannica.com/event/Whiskey-Rebellion
>> > > > >>>>>
>> > > > >>>>> As I said, the government DOES have the ability to tax specific groups to CONTROL NEGATIVE BEHAVIOR. They do not have the ability to fund themselves only via small groups.
>> > > > >>>>>
>> > > > >>>> Peruse Art I sec 8 again and maybe rephrase that.
>> > > > >>>
>> > > > >>> Andrew, you are not a Constitutional lawyer. In the manner you're interpreting that there would have been no reason for the Supreme Court to overthrow the attempt to support the majority of the population by taxing a minority. So think about that. Taxes are legal We know that. And taxes can be exercised by virtually any means. But you may not screw some minority for your own benefit. The present means of taxation of the rich could probably be challenged in court but the rich are willing to carry the load up to this point. But we presently have a 22 Trillion dollar national debt and it isn't going to be too long before large tax increases are coming and the rich aren't going to agree to carry that much additional load.
>> > > > >>>
>> > > > >> Words have meaning.
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >> _Excise taxes_ are specifically constitutional with a whole
>> > > > >> bunch of Statutes for implementation and penalties.
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >> _Income taxes_ were absolutely unconstitutional and with
>> > > > >> good reason. The Framers understood your argument and wrote
>> > > > >> protections against them. Yes, The Supremes struck down
>> > > > >> early attempts as unconstitutional, and rightly so, both
>> > > > >> textually and morally. The dread 16th Amendment changed
>> > > > >> everything, making income taxes possible (quickly
>> > > > >> implemented by Statute) and forever changing the
>> > > > >> relationship of the individual citizen to the State. To our
>> > > > >> greater loss, but there it is.
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >> https://mmsbharathm7.weebly.com/uploads/1/5/7/0/15702150/117023625.JPG
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >> _Wealth tax_ as being currently fomented in the Congress is
>> > > > >> as unconstitutional as anything and so would require another
>> > > > >> Amendment. That will never happen with 30 million illegals
>> > > > >> voting plus an extra 2 million illegals this year for the
>> > > > >> next election. But make it another 5 or 10 million a few
>> > > > >> years on, and all bets are off. Hold on, it's going to be a
>> > > > >> wild ride once Americans are outvoted by 'dreamers'.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > While we can argue about the manner in which the income taxes were corrupted, I believe that we agree that you cannot have government services without paying for them and that most taxes injure specific groups in an illegal manner. Excise taxes in particular since it isn't government services that are being paid for but making one specific group liable for financing the country merely from the fact that they use a specific type of goods.
>> > > > >
>> > > > Bitch all you like, and there are valid criticisms of any
>> > > > tax scheme, but excise taxes are not only constitutional and
>> > > > legal but provided the overwhelming bulk of Treasury revenue
>> > > > from 1789 through 1913. All Treasury revenue for those 124
>> > > > years altogether was roughly 25 billion.
>> > > >
>> > > > Spending less would mean lower taxes but that option is
>> > > > never on the table
>> > > .
>> > > Tariffs and use taxes were also big. Tariffs and excise taxes get passed on in the cost of goods, and the taxes are paid indirectly by purchases, whether purchase are made in money or trade. If one bartered for refined sugar, legal alcohol or gun powder, the parties to the exchange paid excise taxes, so the notion that only the rich paid taxes is wrong.
>> > Explain how the government knows what you barter or trade for when 98% of that is by individuals without any tracking of their economies?
>> Now pay attention: I buy a bag of refined sugar from ye olde dry good store. The price includes an excise tax, which is collected by the sugar distributor and passed on by the seller in the price of the sugar. I then trade that sugar to Zeek the beaver trapper for some pelts, and to get equivalent value to what I spent on the sugar, I want two pelts instead of one -- or one beaver pelt and a nutria pelt or some willow bark for the headache your are giving me. If I pay more for sugar, I expect more in trade -- and the person making the trade is "paying" more -- and indirectly paying the excise tax or tariff.
>>
>> You imagine an economy that did not involve manufactured or imported goods, which was never he case in the US. People were not making rifles in their home forges and trading them to other people. They were imported along with tea, sugar, alcohol (rum) and other goods. BTW, this is also why the barter economy kicked the bucket early in American history. It only works when both parties have something the other wants. It is super inefficient. With money, you can buy whatever you want. Screw the beaver pelts.
>
>Jay, the headache isn't from me. It from you trying to understand the simplest possible terms put before you. MOST of the USA was on a barter system before the advent of our money system. Most of it remained that way after the money system because the money was all held by the commercial interests. Whether you called it an income tax or an excise tax mattered not at all because the SAME people paid in either case. Once the country began moving away from the barter system and into the money system, it made a HUGE difference whether you called it an excise or an income tax. I will repeat - you do not finance a country and all of its services by forcing the costs upon a minority. We've gone through all of this sort of crap before when we were speaking of increasing the money supply. You do not understand the most basic requirements of economics.

On Saturday, September 18, 2021 at 3:59:29 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
> On Sat, 18 Sep 2021 14:55:29 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
> <cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Saturday, September 18, 2021 at 2:48:40 PM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote:
> >> On Saturday, September 18, 2021 at 2:39:05 PM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
> >> > On 9/18/2021 3:55 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> >> > > On Friday, September 17, 2021 at 3:08:47 PM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
> >> > >> On 9/17/2021 4:31 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> >> > >>> On Friday, September 17, 2021 at 11:44:56 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
> >> > >>>> On 9/17/2021 11:54 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> >> > >>>>> On Friday, September 17, 2021 at 9:52:32 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
> >> > >>>>>> On 9/17/2021 11:40 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> >> > >>>>>>> On Friday, September 17, 2021 at 8:45:39 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
> >> > >>>>>>>> On 9/17/2021 9:46 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> >> > >>>>>>>>> On Friday, September 17, 2021 at 5:49:36 AM UTC-7, William Crowell wrote:
> >> > >>>>>>>>>> Yes, Tom, I believe I do understand what an excise tax is.. I took two semesters of tax law in law school and also some "Mandatory Continuing Legal Education" courses on tax law. But maybe you went to a better law school than I did. I went to one of the U.C. law schools. I'll bet you went to Harvard or Yale, you corker, and just haven't told us because you're so modest.
> >> > >>>>>>>>>>
> >> > >>>>>>>>>> So if a commie and a conservative agree that the sky is blue, does that mean that the conservative is a commie?
> >> > >>>>>>>>>>
> >> > >>>>>>>>>> Actually, I view U.S. history as a play with quite a few acts. Even though the first act was pretty phony, there is plenty of time for the play to redeem itself. And I will admit that every time I have traveled abroad, I kissed the ground I walked upon, figuratively speaking, when I returned to U.S. soil. We're just discussing our country's original sin that the revolution was ginned up (not to mention the original sin of slavery), but the real meaning of the story is probably in the salvation from that sin.
> >> > >>>>>>>>> Then explain to us why you think that an excise tax would not be found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court? Show us all that vast legal knowledge of yours which would put the load for paying for government upon a select and weaker minority and tell us that you're a Conservative again.
> >> > >>>>>>>>>
> >> > >>>>>>>> WTF?
> >> > >>>>>>>>
> >> > >>>>>>>> Article I, sec 8:
> >> > >>>>>>>> https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI_S8_C1_1/
> >> > >>>>>>>
> >> > >>>>>>> Andrew, ask Jay what that means. They are saying that it is legal to use taxes as a method of regulation. It doesn't say that the government may obtain its income from a select group whose power to respond is limited.
> >> > >>>>>>>
> >> > >>>>>>> Now indeed, the means by which the government has assigned the levels of taxation more or less does the same thing with the top 10% of income earners paying something like 80% of the taxes but this in effect is the overwhelming majority of income earners since last time I checked, the bottom end of that top 10% was $116,000 or a sanitation worker that works overtime often. And most government workers.
> >> > >>>>>>>
> >> > >>>>>> 'a select group' ?
> >> > >>>>>> Such as whiskey producers & whiskey drinkers? Big group!
> >> > >>>>>>
> >> > >>>>>> Alcohol excise tax started on Day One under our
> >> > >>>>>> Constitution. You can bitch and moan but that's how it is,
> >> > >>>>>> then and now.
> >> > >>>>>>
> >> > >>>>>> https://www.britannica.com/event/Whiskey-Rebellion
> >> > >>>>>
> >> > >>>>> As I said, the government DOES have the ability to tax specific groups to CONTROL NEGATIVE BEHAVIOR. They do not have the ability to fund themselves only via small groups.
> >> > >>>>>
> >> > >>>> Peruse Art I sec 8 again and maybe rephrase that.
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>> Andrew, you are not a Constitutional lawyer. In the manner you're interpreting that there would have been no reason for the Supreme Court to overthrow the attempt to support the majority of the population by taxing a minority. So think about that. Taxes are legal We know that. And taxes can be exercised by virtually any means. But you may not screw some minority for your own benefit. The present means of taxation of the rich could probably be challenged in court but the rich are willing to carry the load up to this point. But we presently have a 22 Trillion dollar national debt and it isn't going to be too long before large tax increases are coming and the rich aren't going to agree to carry that much additional load.
> >> > >>>
> >> > >> Words have meaning.
> >> > >>
> >> > >> _Excise taxes_ are specifically constitutional with a whole
> >> > >> bunch of Statutes for implementation and penalties.
> >> > >>
> >> > >> _Income taxes_ were absolutely unconstitutional and with
> >> > >> good reason. The Framers understood your argument and wrote
> >> > >> protections against them. Yes, The Supremes struck down
> >> > >> early attempts as unconstitutional, and rightly so, both
> >> > >> textually and morally. The dread 16th Amendment changed
> >> > >> everything, making income taxes possible (quickly
> >> > >> implemented by Statute) and forever changing the
> >> > >> relationship of the individual citizen to the State. To our
> >> > >> greater loss, but there it is.
> >> > >>
> >> > >> https://mmsbharathm7.weebly.com/uploads/1/5/7/0/15702150/117023625.JPG
> >> > >>
> >> > >> _Wealth tax_ as being currently fomented in the Congress is
> >> > >> as unconstitutional as anything and so would require another
> >> > >> Amendment. That will never happen with 30 million illegals
> >> > >> voting plus an extra 2 million illegals this year for the
> >> > >> next election. But make it another 5 or 10 million a few
> >> > >> years on, and all bets are off. Hold on, it's going to be a
> >> > >> wild ride once Americans are outvoted by 'dreamers'.
> >> > >
> >> > > While we can argue about the manner in which the income taxes were corrupted, I believe that we agree that you cannot have government services without paying for them and that most taxes injure specific groups in an illegal manner. Excise taxes in particular since it isn't government services that are being paid for but making one specific group liable for financing the country merely from the fact that they use a specific type of goods.
> >> > >
> >> > Bitch all you like, and there are valid criticisms of any
> >> > tax scheme, but excise taxes are not only constitutional and
> >> > legal but provided the overwhelming bulk of Treasury revenue
> >> > from 1789 through 1913. All Treasury revenue for those 124
> >> > years altogether was roughly 25 billion.
> >> >
> >> > Spending less would mean lower taxes but that option is
> >> > never on the table
> >> .
> >> Tariffs and use taxes were also big. Tariffs and excise taxes get passed on in the cost of goods, and the taxes are paid indirectly by purchases, whether purchase are made in money or trade. If one bartered for refined sugar, legal alcohol or gun powder, the parties to the exchange paid excise taxes, so the notion that only the rich paid taxes is wrong.
> >
> >Explain how the government knows what you barter or trade for when 98% of that is by individuals without any tracking of their economies?
> Tommy, you just keep exposing your ignorance. The Whiskey Rebellion of
> 1791 - 94 was against a excise tax levied on distilled beverages. This
> tax was paid by the manufacturer and passed along to the customer in
> the form of an increase in price. So, in effect, when one bought
> whiskey, one paid tax..
>
> Now, granted, this may seem rather complex, to you, but it is a rather
> simple formula to anyone that can count.