On 9/18/2021 7:15 PM, jbeattie wrote:
> 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.
>
> By the way, the Oregon Liquor Control Commission is the single supplier of alcoholic beverages in Oregon. We have privately owned "state" liquor stores (basically franchises) that purchase all of their alcohol from the state. The alcohol tax is collected by the state-run distributor, the private seller marks it up, and the consumer pays exactly the price shown on the shelf. We have no sales tax.
>
> Washington had the same system, but Washingtonians got tired of trudging to state controlled stores, and a law was passed allowing the private sale of alcohol in retail outlets like supermarkets. To maintain the same revenue, however, the state passed a super-tax on liquor (actually two separate taxes) that are not easy to calculate in one's head and that are large. The price looks good on the shelf, but when you get to the check-out, its like a 30% pop, depending on the volume of booze purchased. Enough to make a guy sober. Washington is really big into sin taxes since they have no income tax (except a capital gains tax to capture some of the Amazon and Microsoft dollars).
>
> -- Jay Beattie.
>

+1 Liquor prices in WA are insane. I ship Scots' whisky to
my brother from low tax WI to punitive WA.

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