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.

Tommy Boy, you are incredibly stupid. The use of Currency, in America,
dates back to at least 1690 when the Massachusetts Bay Colony financed
a military expedition to Canada by issuing bills of credit. and by the
time of the Revolutionary War, each of the thirteen colonies’
governments had emitted their own currency issues.

Your vision of happy, but primitive, folks gleefully exchanging baby
pigs for a new dress for their wife is not only wrong, it is down
right stupid.
--
Cheers,

John B.