Rallying Cry 2

[SteveSy]

If you're affecting how a business operates then you have control or influence in how it operates. That's called regulation.

Even Chief Justice Taft, who wrote the majority opinion in the Drexel Furniture case, knew the difference between regulation and taxation:

Does this law impose a tax with only that incidental restraint and regulation which a tax must inevitably involve? Or does it regulate by the use of the so-called tax as a penalty?

All taxation regulates to some degree. But that doesn't make it unconstitutional.

Ok....All I'm saying is that if the Federal government claims something is regulation by the states then surely if the Federal government does the exact same thing to the states it's just as unconstitutional. There is no special provision that allows the Federal government to claim something is regulation when it’s done to them but if they do the same thing in reverse it’s not. The notion would be absurd on its face.

[SteveSy]

Also, you can argue over whether pork barrel projects in a particular state serve the general welfare, but that's a spending issue, not a taxation issue.

Why do you guys always attempt to seperate the two? They are constitutionally linked. It's very clear. Without quoting numerous historical sources all one has to do is look at the text.

The Congress shall have the Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States...

If it's not for those things listed then they are not given the power to collect. Your argument is akin to having a contract stating the following:

"Company XYZ shall have the Power to collect funds to pay the debts of company ABC."

Company XYZ then collects for other reasons on ABC's behalf, personal pet projects etc, and then makes the claim that the power to collect is separate from the power to appropriate.

[Duke2Earl]

You have to understand Sybil. All thoughts, ideas and concepts in the world must be run through the filter of "what makes sense to him individually" before they have even the slightest validity. And consider what makes sense to him... for example, it makes sense to him that every federal judge for 90 plus years is either corrupt or ignorant. It makes sense to him that he knows more about law, history and taxes (just to name a few subjects) than basically anyone on the planet. Other things, like for instance, public education or any government aid for the less fortunate make no sense to him. He never really caught on to this representative government thing no matter how much he professes to love the Constitution.

[SteveSy]

Other things, like for instance, public education or any government aid for the less fortunate make no sense to him. He never really caught on to this representative government thing no matter how much he professes to love the Constitution.

Those are important to me. What does that have to do with what is or what is not allowed by the constitution? btw, we don't just have a representative government. If your theory was valid we wouldn't have a constitution at all because our representatives would control everything based on representation. It's so sad you dislike the idea of rules denying a mobocracy.

I'm sure you dislike crime too, and a lot of people are suffering and dying because of it. Should we allow random house to house searches? Maybe we should tag everyone and place monitoring devices in homes to remove any ability of a criminal to escape prosecution. I mean if you really don't want victims to suffer you should be willing to allow this. How about we make you give up all your wealth and earnings and let the government redistribute it according to need. Surely you don't want people to suffer and to be treated unfairly do you?

[Famspear]

SteveSy wrote:

Why do you guys always attempt to seperate [sic] the two? They are constitutionally linked. It's very clear. Without quoting numerous historical sources all one has to do is look at the text.

Lots of concepts are "linked." The powers of taxing, spending, and regulating are linked, but they are separate powers, and must be analyzed with a view to how THE COURTS have analyzed those powers. I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with the specifics of what you're saying (indeed I can't follow this thread too closely right now, due to my workload at the moment), I'm just pointing out it's fundamental to proper constitutional analysis to recognize that the powers of taxing and spending are far more extensive than the power of regulation.

[SteveSy]

SteveSy wrote:

Why do you guys always attempt to seperate [sic] the two? They are constitutionally linked. It's very clear. Without quoting numerous historical sources all one has to do is look at the text.

Lots of concepts are "linked." The powers of taxing, spending, and regulating are linked, but they are separate powers, and must be analyzed with a view to how THE COURTS have analyzed those powers. I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with the specifics of what you're saying (indeed I can't follow this thread too closely right now, due to my workload at the moment), I'm just pointing out it's fundamental to proper constitutional analysis to recognize that the powers of taxing and spending are far more extensive than the power of regulation.

Do you have a single example of where the "COURTS" have declared the spending power is sperate from the taxating power? Good luck.....

Here's a starting point:

The government concedes that the phrase 'to provide for the general welfare' qualifies the power 'to lay and collect taxes.' The view that the clause grants power to provide for the general welfare, independently of the taxing power, has never been authoritatively accepted.

(emphasis mine) - U.S. v. BUTLER, 297 U.S. 1 (1936)

[Duke2Earl]

Other things, like for instance, public education or any government aid for the less fortunate make no sense to him. He never really caught on to this representative government thing no matter how much he professes to love the Constitution.

Those are important to me. What does that have to do with what is or what is not allowed by the constitution? btw, we don't just have a representative government. If your theory was valid we wouldn't have a constitution at all because our representatives would control everything based on representation. It's so sad you dislike the idea of rules denying a mobocracy.

I'm sure you dislike crime too, and a lot of people are suffering and dying because of it. Should we allow random house to house searches? Maybe we should tag everyone and place monitoring devices in homes to remove any ability of a criminal to escape prosecution. I mean if you really don't want victims to suffer you should be willing to allow this. How about we make you give up all your wealth and earnings and let the government redistribute it according to need. Surely you don't want people to suffer and to be treated unfairly do you?

In other words once you get past the stupid exaggerations and hysteria, he agrees with what I said. He individually, not the courts or the representative elected government gets to decide everything personally.

[Evil Squirrel Overlord]

The same way it does when the States attempt to tax interstate commerce.

Which is?..... (In otherwords: you'll have to explain. I have a peanut-sized brain.)

Any tax by a state on anything related to something within interstate commerce is considered "regulation". For instance a tax on the license to import goods in to a state would be shot down.

So state taxes on tobacco and the like are unconstitutional because they attempt to regulate the product through costs while raising revenue? -- But I still don't follow how the income tax is the same thing as a "sin" tax?

You don't think certain deductions, credits and exclusions on certain areas of business have an effect on how that business operates?

How are taxes that affect businesses operations an "attempt to regulate intrastate commerce"?

If you're affecting how a business operates then you have control or influence in how it operates. That's called regulation.[/quote]
Call it a logic attack but by that slippery slope the fact that I ate a one-dollar Snicker bar rather than a donut this morning affected how the business operated, so I have control and influence over how that business operates.

Likewise you don't think a tax credit or deduction for children and other personal activities has an effect on how people will live their lives?

I really don't see how the child credit is an "attempt to regulate intrastate commerce". Can you explain.

If the government removed the tax credit would it affect how people have children?[/quote]
But how does this follow through to regulating intrastate commerce? In other words how would a change in the tax credit change specific behaviors in interstate commerce?

Let's try this way because I do not believe you're being sincere. Can you explain how a state allowing the growing of marijuana in a citizen's backyard for personal medical use is regulating interstate commerce? Can you explain why a license fee for importing into a state is regulating interstate commerce? Once you answer those questions you may be able to understand where I'm coming from.

No I don't think I will since we are talking about income taxes and none of these are comparable to the income tax. Besides this argument does not argue for the elimination of income tax, only certain tax credits.

Remember states cannot regulate interstate commerce and the federal government cannot regulate intrastate commerce. No special rules for either are defined in the constitution. So it's reasonable to believe that if one entity is doing something unconstitutional by infringing on the other's role then having the other entity do the same exact thing would be just as unconstitutional.

You'll need to put forth reasons as to WHY the income tax reglates intrastate commerce.

[Famspear]

SteveSy:

Do you have a single example of where the "COURTS" have declared the spending power is sperate [sic] from the taxating [sic] power? Good luck.....

Did you mean to say a case where the spending power is different from the regulating power?

Obviously, taxing and spending are separate powers; indeed, they're exact opposites. The power to tax is the power to exact, to bring money INTO the Treasury. The power to spend is the power to APPROPRIATE -- to send money OUT of the Treasury. Revenues versus expenditures.

[SteveSy]

So state taxes on tobacco and the like are unconstitutional because they attempt to regulate the product through costs while raising revenue? -- But I still don't follow how the income tax is the same thing as a "sin" tax?

No it wouldn't be because the tobacco companies ship and sell it all around the world. Now if the government attempted to tax the growing of tobacco for personal use then yes I believe it would be a form of regulation.

Call it a logic attack but by that slippery slope the fact that I ate a one-dollar Snicker bar rather than a donut this morning affected how the business operated, so I have control and influence over how that business operates.

No, that wouldn't be regulation. However if you had the ability to control whether snickers could be produced cheaper due to an extra charge to make them then yes you are in fact regulating that item. For instance let’s say I was the only shipper in the U.S. I give donut makers a break on shipping but no one else am I not in effect manipulating the cost and ultimately how many donuts get sold?

But how does this follow through to regulating intrastate commerce? In other words how would a change in the tax credit change specific behaviors in interstate commerce?

I'm simply applying the same logic the Federal government has used to qualify its claim of something being regulation.

Let's try this way because I do not believe you're being sincere. Can you explain how a state allowing the growing of marijuana in a citizen's backyard for personal medical use is regulating interstate commerce? Can you explain why a license fee for importing into a state is regulating interstate commerce? Once you answer those questions you may be able to understand where I'm coming from.

No I don't think I will since we are talking about income taxes and none of these are comparable to the income tax. Besides this argument does not argue for the elimination of income tax, only certain tax credits.

Yes it is comparable due to the fact that manipulating a thing that affects mainly interstate commerce is considered a form of regulation on that commerce. We are considering the use of the word "regulation" as the federal government has used it. If the very broad definition of regulation is met then it is regulation and it is forbidden if it is done to the opposing entity.

Certainly if the potential sale of home grown pot, legally grown for personal use, infringes on the regulation of interstate commerce because it might be sold across the state border then surely taxing the earnings of a State citizen who will always spend the vast majority if not all of his earning in purely intrastate commerce would be just as much regulation of that commerce. I guarantee that if a State attempted to tax certain interstate activities differently, by use of credits, deductions or exemptions etc, than others, it would be shot down as unconstitutional without hesitation.

[SteveSy]

SteveSy:

Do you have a single example of where the "COURTS" have declared the spending power is sperate [sic] from the taxating [sic] power? Good luck.....

Did you mean to say a case where the spending power is different from the regulating power?

Obviously, taxing and spending are separate powers; indeed, they're exact opposites. The power to tax is the power to exact, to bring money INTO the Treasury. The power to spend is the power to APPROPRIATE -- to send money OUT of the Treasury. Revenues versus expenditures.

No not regulation....that's a different topic going on in the same thread.

Let's review:

The government concedes that the phrase 'to provide for the general welfare' qualifies the power 'to lay and collect taxes.' The view that the clause grants power to provide for the general welfare, independently of the taxing power, has never been authoritatively accepted.

(emphasis mine) - U.S. v. BUTLER, 297 U.S. 1 (1936)

The power to tax is only given IF they spend on items authrorized by the constitution.

[SteveSy]

Other things, like for instance, public education or any government aid for the less fortunate make no sense to him. He never really caught on to this representative government thing no matter how much he professes to love the Constitution.

Those are important to me. What does that have to do with what is or what is not allowed by the constitution? btw, we don't just have a representative government. If your theory was valid we wouldn't have a constitution at all because our representatives would control everything based on representation. It's so sad you dislike the idea of rules denying a mobocracy.

I'm sure you dislike crime too, and a lot of people are suffering and dying because of it. Should we allow random house to house searches? Maybe we should tag everyone and place monitoring devices in homes to remove any ability of a criminal to escape prosecution. I mean if you really don't want victims to suffer you should be willing to allow this. How about we make you give up all your wealth and earnings and let the government redistribute it according to need. Surely you don't want people to suffer and to be treated unfairly do you?

In other words once you get past the stupid exaggerations and hysteria, he agrees with what I said. He individually, not the courts or the representative elected government gets to decide everything personally.

That's not what you said....

You tried and failed to use a lame argument tactic by attempting imply I don’t care about anyone but myself and that's my motivation for not agreeing with the income tax.

If you truly cared about people Dukey then you should be willing to give up all your earnings. People are still suffering and education is lacking with the current tax revenue. Using your standard you should be required, and happy to give up, everything and let the government sort it out or for you. If not, by your own standard you are greedy and self centered and care about no one but yourself. Same goes with crime, people are still suffering even though we have law enforcement and courts. You should be willing to accept more intrusion to save those people otherwise you are nothing but a self centered, uncaring individual.

More importantly what your post shows is how you think. As long as it’s ok with your idea of what are acceptable evils, pain suffering and lack of potential quality, then it’s good for everyone else, so sayeth you almighty. It’s that whole elitist, egomaniacal, personality disorder that pervades our government today and most on this board.

[Evil Squirrel Overlord]

So state taxes on tobacco and the like are unconstitutional because they attempt to regulate the product through costs while raising revenue? -- But I still don't follow how the income tax is the same thing as a "sin" tax?

No it wouldn't be because the tobacco companies ship and sell it all around the world. Now if the government attempted to tax the growing of tobacco for personal use then yes I believe it would be a form of regulation.

Okay now I am really confused. Are you saying a "sin" tax must be on the producer? Then how can a state like Minnesota tax a product grown in Virginia? They do not tax the grower, but the product? Are you saying because the grower pays a federal tax on income this is essentially an intrastate tax?

Call it a logic attack but by that slippery slope the fact that I ate a one-dollar Snicker bar rather than a donut this morning affected how the business operated, so I have control and influence over how that business operates.

No, that wouldn't be regulation. However if you had the ability to control whether snickers could be produced cheaper due to an extra charge to make them then yes you are in fact regulating that item. For instance let’s say I was the only shipper in the U.S. I give donut makers a break on shipping but no one else am I not in effect manipulating the cost and ultimately how many donuts get sold?[/quote]
I still don't see how any of this relates to income tax since the tax is not meant to manipulate costs.

But how does this follow through to regulating intrastate commerce? In other words how would a change in the tax credit change specific behaviors in interstate commerce?

I'm simply applying the same logic the Federal government has used to qualify its claim of something being regulation.[/quote]
That is not an answer to my question: How does this follow through to regulating intrastate commerce? In other words how would a change in the tax credit change specific behaviors in intrastate commerce? (Notice: Edited mistake should have been intrastate.)

Certainly if the potential sale of home grown pot, legally grown for personal use, infringes on the regulation of interstate commerce because it might be sold across the state border then surely taxing the earnings of a State citizen who will always spend the vast majority if not all of his earning in purely intrastate commerce would be just as much regulation of that commerce.

Why the example of pot? I gave you a perfectly good exapmle of products that are taxed in order to regulate use (Tobacco and Alcohol). These are often sold across state borders, they need carry a state tax seal in order to be sold in that state. Is that not essentially what you are trying to equivocate with income tax?

I guarantee that if a State attempted to tax certain interstate activities differently, by use of credits, deductions or exemptions etc, than others, it would be shot down as unconstitutional without hesitation.

How does this relate to the income tax?

[SteveSy]

So state taxes on tobacco and the like are unconstitutional because they attempt to regulate the product through costs while raising revenue? -- But I still don't follow how the income tax is the same thing as a "sin" tax?

No it wouldn't be because the tobacco companies ship and sell it all around the world. Now if the government attempted to tax the growing of tobacco for personal use then yes I believe it would be a form of regulation.

Okay now I am really confused. Are you saying a "sin" tax must be on the producer? Then how can a state like Minnesota tax a product grown in Virginia? They do not tax the grower, but the product? Are you saying because the grower pays a federal tax on income this is essentially an intrastate tax?

Let's take business out of this. A lot of businesses sell product that directly affects interstate commerce. Individual people do not. This is the realm of my argument. I contend that a person making all his earnings within a State directly affects almost entirely intrastate commerce.

Call it a logic attack but by that slippery slope the fact that I ate a one-dollar Snicker bar rather than a donut this morning affected how the business operated, so I have control and influence over how that business operates.

No, that wouldn't be regulation. However if you had the ability to control whether snickers could be produced cheaper due to an extra charge to make them then yes you are in fact regulating that item. For instance let’s say I was the only shipper in the U.S. I give donut makers a break on shipping but no one else am I not in effect manipulating the cost and ultimately how many donuts get sold?

I still don't see how any of this relates to income tax since the tax is not meant to manipulate costs. [/quote]
A tax on importers licenses isn’t intended to manipulate interstate commerce to any noticeable degree either however the federal government has stated that is an infringement on their right to regulate interstate commerce.

Income tax credits, deductions and exemptions are intended to manipulate how people and business operate. Are you honestly going to argue congress never places incentives in the tax code to manipulate commerce?

What you want is a direct correlation where the code specifically and obviously regulates something via a tax. It doesn't have to be like that to be called regulation. I've give examples of where States have lost taxing ability because of their attempt to tax something regardless if the intention was to manipulate it or not. It just has to significantly affect commerce to violate the rule allowing the exclusive regulation.

Certainly if the potential sale of home grown pot, legally grown for personal use, infringes on the regulation of interstate commerce because it might be sold across the state border then surely taxing the earnings of a State citizen who will always spend the vast majority if not all of his earning in purely intrastate commerce would be just as much regulation of that commerce.

Why the example of pot? I gave you a perfectly good exapmle of products that are taxed in order to regulate use (Tobacco and Alcohol). These are often sold across state borders, they need carry a state tax seal in order to be sold in that state. Is that not essentially what you are trying to equivocate with income tax?

Yes they are intended to regulate use but they pass through interstate commerce. Now if that product was almost entirely consumed within the states borders without transport between states it would be regulation of that commerce within the state. You don't agree?

[Duke2Earl]

Those are important to me. What does that have to do with what is or what is not allowed by the constitution? btw, we don't just have a representative government. If your theory was valid we wouldn't have a constitution at all because our representatives would control everything based on representation. It's so sad you dislike the idea of rules denying a mobocracy.

I'm sure you dislike crime too, and a lot of people are suffering and dying because of it. Should we allow random house to house searches? Maybe we should tag everyone and place monitoring devices in homes to remove any ability of a criminal to escape prosecution. I mean if you really don't want victims to suffer you should be willing to allow this. How about we make you give up all your wealth and earnings and let the government redistribute it according to need. Surely you don't want people to suffer and to be treated unfairly do you?

In other words once you get past the stupid exaggerations and hysteria, he agrees with what I said. He individually, not the courts or the representative elected government gets to decide everything personally.

That's not what you said....

You tried and failed to use a lame argument tactic by attempting imply I don’t care about anyone but myself and that's my motivation for not agreeing with the income tax.

If you truly cared about people Dukey then you should be willing to give up all your earnings. People are still suffering and education is lacking with the current tax revenue. Using your standard you should be required, and happy to give up, everything and let the government sort it out or for you. If not, by your own standard you are greedy and self centered and care about no one but yourself. Same goes with crime, people are still suffering even though we have law enforcement and courts. You should be willing to accept more intrusion to save those people otherwise you are nothing but a self centered, uncaring individual.

More importantly what your post shows is how you think. As long as it’s ok with your idea of what are acceptable evils, pain suffering and lack of potential quality, then it’s good for everyone else, so sayeth you almighty. It’s that whole elitist, egomaniacal, personality disorder that pervades our government today and most on this board.

You do recognize you are totally insane. I said none of those things. All I said was that to you all that matters is what you think and you get the power to self decide everything. You have no recognition of the fact that others might just have the power to make laws and you just might have to obey or face unpleasant consequences. I'm sorry but the founders you channel would never have agreed with you. The whole point of representative government is that decisions are made by representatives. I'm not the elitist... you are. As I said, you are simply insane.

[LPC]

Any tax by a state on anything related to something within interstate commerce is considered "regulation".

Wrong again. States are free to tax interstate commerce in the same way they tax intrastate commerce.

The only thing that states can't do is impose a higher tax on interstate commerce than on intrastate commerce.

[LPC]

Let's take business out of this. A lot of businesses sell product that directly affects interstate commerce. Individual people do not. This is the realm of my argument. I contend that a person making all his earnings within a State directly affects almost entirely intrastate commerce.

So businesses affect interstate commerce but the people working for those businesses do not?

Duke2Earl is right: You're insane.

[Evil Squirrel Overlord]

Let's take business out of this. A lot of businesses sell product that directly affects interstate commerce. Individual people do not. This is the realm of my argument. I contend that a person making all his earnings within a State directly affects almost entirely intrastate commerce.

How does the income tax regulate commerce? And how is this in violation of anything?

Call it a logic attack but by that slippery slope the fact that I ate a one-dollar Snicker bar rather than a donut this morning affected how the business operated, so I have control and influence over how that business operates.

No, that wouldn't be regulation. However if you had the ability to control whether snickers could be produced cheaper due to an extra charge to make them then yes you are in fact regulating that item. For instance let’s say I was the only shipper in the U.S. I give donut makers a break on shipping but no one else am I not in effect manipulating the cost and ultimately how many donuts get sold?

I still don't see how any of this relates to income tax since the tax is not meant to manipulate costs.

A tax on importers licenses isn’t intended to manipulate interstate commerce to any noticeable degree either however the federal government has stated that is an infringement on their right to regulate interstate commerce.

Income tax credits, deductions and exemptions are intended to manipulate how people and business operate. Are you honestly going to argue congress never places incentives in the tax code to manipulate commerce?

And how would this invalidate ALL income tax? Or are you arguing that income tax is valid (sans said incentives)?

What you want is a direct correlation where the code specifically and obviously regulates something via a tax. It doesn't have to be like that to be called regulation. I've give examples of where States have lost taxing ability because of their attempt to tax something regardless if the intention was to manipulate it or not. It just has to significantly affect commerce to violate the rule allowing the exclusive regulation.

IF there is not a direct correlation how is the income tax regulating commerce?

I gave you a perfectly good exapmle of products that are taxed in order to regulate use (Tobacco and Alcohol). These are often sold across state borders, they need carry a state tax seal in order to be sold in that state. Is that not essentially what you are trying to equivocate with income tax?

Yes they are intended to regulate use but they pass through interstate commerce. Now if that product was almost entirely consumed within the states borders without transport between states it would be regulation of that commerce within the state. You don't agree?

Nope, because those taxes of which I speak are imposed by the states. I do not see the connection. Income is spent on goods that travel through several states as well as non-consumerables. Your argument makes no sense. My natural gas is subject to all kinds of taxes and regulations by state, provincial, and national governments. How is a product such as natural gas intrastate? How is my income tax a regulator of that commodity? Or any one?

[Dr. Caligari]

I have never claimed my arguments would win in court. In fact I will wholly agree it's almost a guaranteed loser. I will ask you this though, how many tort cases would be won if the company being sued got to appoint and pay the salary of the judge presiding over the case?

Federal judges have life tenure and their salary cannot be diminished while in office. That is why lots of plaintiffs win tort suits against the federal government even though the federal government appoints, and pays the salary of, the judges of the Court of Federal Claims.

[.]

Yeah, but it's fun to watch Sybil trot out the same old, tired junk he's been beaten to a pulp on a dozen times previously.