Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
TaxPhd, I know I shouldn't, but I cannot stop myself from replying, if your not embarrassed,you apparently have no sense of shame.
Please take your other question out of your hand and reveal it to us all.
I know that reading comprehension has been a struggle for you in the past, so I’ll help you out. The question gets at the constitutionality of a national sales tax. And since my question of direct vs indirect didn’t lead you to the underlying issue, I’ll help you out further - given the taxing authority laid out in Article 1, Section 8, why was the 16th amendment required?
As to your attempted slight, why should your lack of understanding cause me any embarrassment or shame?
I know that reading comprehension has been a struggle for you in the past, so I’ll help you out. The question gets at the constitutionality of a national sales tax. And since my question of direct vs indirect didn’t lead you to the underlying issue, I’ll help you out further - given the taxing authority laid out in Article 1, Section 8, why was the 16th amendment required?
As to your attempted slight, why should your lack of understanding cause me any embarrassment or shame?
Good luck arguing with a brick wall TaxPHD, that poster is painfully unaware of the fact they haven't got a clue.
Why is speculating in the largest companies that are large enough to be publicly traded on private platforms like the NYSE always the only solution to something?
You only make your money if you sell at an even higher price. Who is going to afford that? Or the dividends increases, and that means prices have to increase, or market share increase. Which in turn means other companies lose profits. All that does is cause COL to keep rising, and less opportunities to make more money for yourself.
Or maybe everyone consolidates so there is only one player in the field. At that point why not just be communists? I may make this into a thread.
There aren't many countries in the world that have a private retirement funding system (aka social security). The best-known and likely most successful example is Chile, which has had a private retirement funding system since roughly the mid or late 1970s. It was established when the country was in financial ruin and the (military dictatorship) government of that time had to take some fast and drastic actions to cut down government spending while at the same time inject capital into the domestic economy to spur growth. Since they had a dictatorship, there was no congressional approval needed - which explains why in most democracies it would be tough to ever stop a government provided retirement system and enact a private pension system.
Even though Chile has had a left of center democratically elected government for most of the time since the early 1990s, they have not dumped the private retirement funding system and gone back to government run social security. The majority of working people prefer keeping the private retirement funding system.
The interesting thing about the private retirement funds that people can enroll in is they each much be approved by a non-political financial review board. The funds that people invest their retirement money in have to invest the overwhelming majority of the capital within the country - they are not allowed to take that money and invest it outside the country. That is how the economy of Chile has become one of the most successful in Latin America.
... Prior to the Social Security Act of 1935, there were 35 States that had social security programs. ...
Mircea, throughout my life, I've read of USA's historical political, economic, and social conditions. I've had a particular interest in the years between the 1929 stock market crash and the 1941 attack upon Pearl Harbor; I've read of the La follette families political influences upon Wisconsin's and our nation's more liberal politicians.
But except for then Governor Franklin Roosevelt's NY state administration's Temporary Emergency Relief Administration, (TERA), which was a temporary relief program and determined by need rather than an individual's entitlement, I've not found any other state's program which reasonably might considered to have been somewhat similar to the comprehensive scope of the federal social security system.
Among the links that I evoked by asking, ' Prior to the enactment of federal Social Security benefits, did any state in the USA enact any retirement plan for their population's elderly segments? ”.
Both of these two following links cite other links that are credible and/or authoritative.
Excerpted from : Social Security Act - Wikipedia
“By the 1930s, the*United States was the only modern industrial country without any national system of social security. In the midst of the*Great Depression”.,
Also refer to the link: History of Social Security in the United States - Wikipedia
... given the taxing authority laid out in Article 1, Section 8, why was the 16th amendment required? ...
TaxPhd, eventually I may stop doing your homework and you'll need to go elsewhere for your answers. If you don't know how to google search, go to your local library and ask them to teach you.
If your question' are less specific, the answer evoked may be less informative.
In regard to the word "direct" relative to the U.S. Constitution's article 1; the purpose of the 16th amendment, was to remedy the fault the courts found in an earlier federal income tax law.
Would a sales tax levied upon purchasers be considered as a direct tax as the word “direct” is used in the U.S. Constitution's article 1, section 9? No, not in my opinion. A sales tax is a tax based upon persons participation within a sales or trade transaction, rather than a tax based upon the persons themselves or upon their property.
But I'm a layman rather than an attorney, and regardless of your attorney's opinion, it's the court's opinion that determines the answer.
Appellate courts can overrule lower courts, and supreme courts can overturn previous supreme courts decisions.
TaxPhd, regarding the question you did post, I'm aware of no sales tax jurisdiction in the USA where the sales tax is not considered as a direct tax upon the purchaser.
Can’t make up your mind? Above, you say that sales taxes are direct taxes, below, you say they aren’t.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Supposn
TaxPhd, eventually I may stop doing your homework and you'll need to go elsewhere for your answers. If you don't know how to google search, go to your local library and ask them to teach you.
If your question' are less specific, the answer evoked may be less informative.
In regard to the word "direct" relative to the U.S. Constitution's article 1; the purpose of the 16th amendment, was to remedy the fault the courts found in an earlier federal income tax law.
Would a sales tax levied upon purchasers be considered as a direct tax as the word “direct” is used in the U.S. Constitution's article 1, section 9? No, not in my opinion. A sales tax is a tax based upon persons participation within a sales or trade transaction, rather than a tax based upon the persons themselves or upon their property.
But I'm a layman rather than an attorney, and regardless of your attorney's opinion, it's the court's opinion that determines the answer.
Appellate courts can overrule lower courts, and supreme courts can overturn previous supreme courts decisions.
As to the reason for the 16th amendment, you’re wrong. You still don’t understand the issue of direct vs indirect, and how that impacted the necessity of the 16th amendment.
But more importantly, you are, by your own admission, coming to conclusions on very complex issues, based on your opinion. Which you have continually demonstrated has little value. The constitutionality of a national sales tax isn’t going be determined by your opinion, and most certainly not when you’ve shown that you don’t understand the difference between direct and indirect.
In regard to the word "direct" relative to the U.S. Constitution's article 1; the purpose of the 16th amendment, was to remedy the fault the courts found in an earlier federal income tax law.
No, that is wrong. The court determined that an income tax is a direct tax and the constitution requires direct taxes to be apportioned by state population. That's why a constitutional amendment was required to permit an income tax.
Just to make things interesting, there's a case that SCOTUS will hear next session, Moore v. US, related to the tax on foreign earnings that was included in the 2017 Tax Act. One of the issues will likely be when does income become income subject to taxation. Some commentators have speculated that, depending on how far SCOTUS goes in their decision, they might kill the so-called wealth tax before we even have one.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
