T.R | Title | User | Personal Name | Date | Lines |
---|
843.1 | | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Thu Mar 20 1997 10:47 | 1 |
| Wasn't there some amendment that took 100+ years to get ratified?
|
843.2 | | POLAR::RICHARDSON | Patented Problem Generator | Thu Mar 20 1997 10:48 | 1 |
| any longer and it would have been petrified, eh?
|
843.3 | | BULEAN::BANKS | Saturn Sap | Thu Mar 20 1997 10:52 | 3 |
| One of the original 12 amendments didn't get ratified until late in the
20th century. I forget which one, but it's been covered elsewhere in
this conference.
|
843.4 | 1791-1992 (Ronco comma remover not yet invented) | PERFOM::LICEA_KANE | when it's comin' from the left | Thu Mar 20 1997 11:08 | 8 |
|
Amendment XXVII
No law, varying the compensation for services of the Senators and
Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of
Representatives shall have intervened.
-mr. bill
|
843.5 | Thanks | USPS::FPRUSS | Frank Pruss, 202-232-7347 | Thu Mar 20 1997 11:14 | 6 |
| So 200 years is OK? Or did we restart the ratification with a time
limit?
But, clearly Will has erred. He'll collect stick for it.
FJP
|
843.6 | | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Thu Mar 20 1997 11:24 | 1 |
| Putting a time limit on an amendment is fairly recent.
|
843.7 | Soo Confusing | USPS::FPRUSS | Frank Pruss, 202-232-7347 | Thu Mar 20 1997 11:33 | 3 |
| Oh, an innovation is it?
Conservatives are against it, then?
|
843.8 | Oops | USPS::FPRUSS | Frank Pruss, 202-232-7347 | Thu Mar 20 1997 12:29 | 4 |
| Oh I just re-read Will, and the 27th is in there as "with one
exception" qualifier.
Sorry George.
|
843.9 | Income tax? | MILKWY::JACQUES | | Fri Mar 21 1997 15:09 | 8 |
| My understanding is that the Federal Income tax was incorporated into
an amendment that has never been ratified. And the original concept
was that the income tax was "voluntary". Anyone have a thourough
understanding of this?
Inquiring minds!
Mark
|
843.10 | nope | GAAS::BRAUCHER | And nothing else matters | Fri Mar 21 1997 15:13 | 9 |
|
Your understanding is plain wrong. Amendment XVI "The Congress shall
have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source
derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without
regard to any census or enumeration." was poroposed by Congress 7/12/1909
and ratified by 3/4 of the states, becoming the supreme law of the land
on 2/25/1913.
bb
|
843.11 | | ACISS2::LEECH | Terminal Philosophy | Fri Mar 21 1997 16:12 | 2 |
| Actually, the ratification has been in question... some claim that they
were a state short for a 3/4 majority.
|
843.12 | | LANDO::OLIVER_B | gonna have to eventually anyway | Fri Mar 21 1997 16:23 | 3 |
| .11
perhaps they used the wrong tally sheet?
|
843.13 | Another Libertarian Myth? (No time limit specified) | USPS::FPRUSS | Frank Pruss, 202-232-7347 | Fri Mar 21 1997 20:04 | 33 |
| http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Amend.html
Proposal and Ratification
The sixteenth amendment to the Constitution of the United States was
proposed to the legislatures of the several States by the Sixty-first
Congress on the 12th of July, 1909, and was declared, in a proclamation
of the Secretary of State, dated the 25th of February, 1913, to have
been ratified by 36 of the 48 States. The dates of ratification were:
Alabama, August 10, 1909; Kentucky, February 8, 1910; South Carolina,
February 19, 1910; Illinois, March 1, 1910; Mississippi, March 7, 1910;
Oklahoma, March 10, 1910; Maryland, April 8, 1910; Georgia, August 3,
1910; Texas, August 16, 1910; Ohio, January 19, 1911; Idaho, January
20, 1911; Oregon, January 23, 1911; Washington, January 26, 1911;
Montana, January 30, 1911; Indiana, January 30, 1911; California,
January 31, 1911; Nevada, January 31, 1911; South Dakota, February 3,
1911; Nebraska, February 9, 1911; North Carolina, February 11, 1911;
Colorado, February 15, 1911; North Dakota, February 17, 1911; Kansas,
February 18, 1911; Michigan, February 23, 1911; Iowa, February 24,
1911; Missouri, March 16, 1911; Maine, March 31, 1911; Tennessee, April
7, 1911; Arkansas, April 22, 1911 (after having rejected it earlier);
Wisconsin, May 26, 1911; New York, July 12, 1911; Arizona, April 6,
1912; Minnesota, June 11, 1912; Louisiana, June 28, 1912; West
Virginia, January 31, 1913; New Mexico, February 3, 1913.
Ratification was completed on February 3, 1913.
The amendment was subsequently ratified by Massachusetts, March 4,
1913; New Hampshire, March 7, 1913 (after having rejected it on March
2, 1911).
The amendment was rejected (and not subsequently ratified) by
Connecticut, Rhode Island, and Utah.
|
843.14 | Why the income tax is invalid | BIGQ::SORRELLS | Put your behind in your past | Mon Mar 24 1997 09:24 | 10 |
| The tax myth comes in a claim that Ohio was not really a state and thus the
ratification was not valid. You see, some piece of paperwork or
Congressional resolution or something for Ohio's admission was
overlooked. It was found and completed in the 1950's retroactive
to the original date.
I only know this because I was reading it in Cecil Adam's "The Straight
Dope" on AOL last night. His view was that if you would like to
challenge the validity of the income tax and let the IRS ruin your
life based on this piece of historical trivia, then go ahead.
|
843.15 | | USPS::FPRUSS | Frank Pruss, 202-232-7347 | Mon Mar 24 1997 09:28 | 4 |
| But with no time limit, we could through Ohio out, and still have
enough states with the ones that ratified it shortly after it was
"certified" as having been ratified.
|
843.16 | | ACISS2::LEECH | Terminal Philosophy | Mon Mar 24 1997 10:27 | 12 |
| .14
No, that wasn't it. That's the first I heard about the Ohio papers.
Sorry, I forget the basis of why it has been questioned, and quite
frankly, it doesn't matter. See what happens to you if you don't pay
federal taxes...
America, home of the free (well, as long as you hand over 60% of your
salary in taxes), and home of the brave (who cowtow to federal
intrusion in every aspect of their lives, and keep voting for more of
the same). Sigh.
|
843.17 | | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | person B | Mon Mar 24 1997 10:36 | 7 |
|
> <<< Note 843.16 by ACISS2::LEECH "Terminal Philosophy" >>>
You give 60% in taxes??
|
843.18 | | BRITE::FYFE | Use it up, wear it out, make it do, or do without. | Mon Mar 24 1997 10:45 | 3 |
|
60% doesn't seem so much when you consider how many ways you are taxed
every day ....
|
843.19 | Stressed out just thinking about it! | MILKWY::JACQUES | | Mon Mar 24 1997 11:50 | 47 |
| I agree. We pay about 60% taxes. Figure it out for yourself. Add up
the following:
Federal income tax
Federal income tax on capital gains (28%)
Federal income tax on inheritances.
Federal income tax on earned income (interest on bank accounts)
Federal income tax on educational reimbursements
Federal gas tax
Federal *surcharges* on electricity, natural gas, home heating oil,
phone bills, and cable tv. (coming soon to a PC near you, Federal
tax on internet bills). Call 'em surcharges if you like. They're
taxes.
Federal tax on alcoholic beverages.
Federal tax on cigarettes, and other tobacco products.
Federal luxary tax (on luxary cars, boats, etc)
Bear in mind that most of the taxes listed above are not
deductable. You pay these out of your' "after-tax" net income.
State income tax
State capital gains taxes
State income tax on earned income
State inheritance tax
State sales tax
State gas tax
Notice I didn't include FICA, Medicare/medicaid, property taxes,
excise taxes, tolls, and licensing fees, as well as the cost of
mandatory car insurance.
Remember one very important thing. Businesses pay taxes to both
State and Federal. Businesses pass this along to their customers.
Every time you buy a product or service from a business you are
contributing to their tax payment. This includes all taxes they
pay including taxes on energy, sales taxes, income taxes, etc.
Also bear in mind that every time you purchase an imported item,
you are paying the import tarriff or "duty" on that item.
The importers pass this cost onto their customers.
I would argue that the amount of taxes the average citizen pays
is greater than 60%, perhaps as high as 75%. Eventually, all
money finds it's way back to the government in one form or another.
Mark
|
843.20 | | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | person B | Mon Mar 24 1997 12:01 | 10 |
| > <<< Note 843.19 by MILKWY::JACQUES >>>
> Federal income tax on capital gains (28%)
> Federal income tax on inheritances.
> Federal income tax on earned income (interest on bank accounts)
Leech was talking about 60% of salary. You consider these (for
instance) to be salary-related?
|
843.21 | Tax freedom day is in mid July, I believe. | ACISS2::LEECH | Terminal Philosophy | Mon Mar 24 1997 13:21 | 8 |
| 60% or more of what I make (salary) is divied up to local, state and
federal governments. It's all taken out of my salary in one way or
another, just because it isn't itemized on my pay-stub every week, does
not mean that it does not exist and does not affect my disposable
income (of course, 'disposable income' is rather oxymoronic to me these
days).
-steve
|
843.22 | | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Mon Mar 24 1997 14:03 | 1 |
| What's taken out of your salary but not itemized on your pay stub?
|
843.23 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Mon Mar 24 1997 14:55 | 7 |
| Sales taxes paid when making purchases.
Property tax.
Additional Federal Income or State income tax due.
|
843.24 | | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Mon Mar 24 1997 16:14 | 1 |
| Sales tax and property tax aren't taken out of your salary.
|
843.25 | | HIGHD::FLATMAN | [email protected] | Mon Mar 24 1997 16:28 | 8 |
| >Sales tax and property tax aren't taken out of your salary.
Oh really? How do you pay them? From your inheritance? Lottery
winnings? Just about everything I buy ultimately comes out of my
salary. The fact that it isn't automatically withheld doesn't negate
the source.
-- Dave
|
843.26 | | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Mon Mar 24 1997 16:30 | 1 |
| By that argument, lunch gets taken out of your salary.
|
843.27 | | HIGHD::FLATMAN | [email protected] | Mon Mar 24 1997 16:38 | 12 |
| >By that argument, lunch gets taken out of your salary.
Of course it does. What did you think, that I stole it? A certain
percentage of my salary goes towards food. A certain percentage of my
salary goes towards taxes. If I recall correctly, the original
argument was that about 60% of a person's (Mark's?) salary goes towards
taxes.
Of course buying lunch is voluntary so "taken" may not apply. Paying
taxes isn't as voluntary.
-- Dave
|
843.28 | | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Mon Mar 24 1997 16:45 | 5 |
| Paying some taxes _is_ voluntary. For instance, if you don't buy a car, you
won't pay the various taxes involved in car ownership. If you don't buy
property, you won't pay property tax (except insofar as your landlord charges
part of your rent for taxes). If you're homeless in NH, you'll probably pay
no taxes at all.
|
843.29 | I'll give you 2 points for deflection. | HIGHD::FLATMAN | [email protected] | Mon Mar 24 1997 16:51 | 5 |
| RE: .28
I guess that's why I put the little word "as" in .27.
-- Dave
|
843.30 | | BULEAN::BANKS | Saturn Sap | Tue Mar 25 1997 08:04 | 3 |
| Re: Ratification:
I'm still deeply suspicious of W. Va's statehood.
|
843.31 | | POWDML::HANGGELI | Because I Can. | Tue Mar 25 1997 09:06 | 3 |
|
Uh-oh.
|
843.32 | Back to Mexico! | USPS::FPRUSS | Frank Pruss, 202-232-7347 | Tue Mar 25 1997 09:10 | 1 |
| Ya, 'n I don't think mucha Texas or California, either.
|