[Search for users] [Overall Top Noters] [List of all Conferences] [Download this site]

Conference back40::soapbox

Title:Soapbox. Just Soapbox.
Notice:No more new notes
Moderator:WAHOO::LEVESQUEONS
Created:Thu Nov 17 1994
Last Modified:Fri Jun 06 1997
Last Successful Update:Fri Jun 06 1997
Number of topics:862
Total number of notes:339684

843.0. "The Equal Rights Amendment and the Ratification Process " by USPS::FPRUSS (Frank Pruss, 202-232-7347) Thu Mar 20 1997 10:01

    In today's column, George Will discusses the current attempts to revive
    the Equal Rights Amendment. 
    
    Mr. Will deplores this version's provision that there will be no time
    limit on obtaining the required ratification by 38 states. 
    
    He also warns of a second bill that will require Congress to verify the
    ERA as part of the Constitution if three more states ratify the ERA. 
    This later bill assumes that a ratification can never be rescinded,
    even though five states that had ratified the last ERA did in fact
    reverse their ratification before the time limit had expired. In fact
    the original seven year time limit had been extended from seven to ten
    years, itself an act of questionable constitutionality. 
    
    Are either of these approaches wise? Shouldn't something as significant
    as amending our Constitution reflect a reasonable moment in time at
    which 75% or more of the states are in agreement?
    
    
T.RTitleUserPersonal
Name
DateLines
843.1NOTIME::SACKSGerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085Thu Mar 20 1997 10:471
Wasn't there some amendment that took 100+ years to get ratified?
843.2POLAR::RICHARDSONPatented Problem GeneratorThu Mar 20 1997 10:481
    any longer and it would have been petrified, eh?
843.3BULEAN::BANKSSaturn SapThu Mar 20 1997 10:523
    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.
843.41791-1992 (Ronco comma remover not yet invented)PERFOM::LICEA_KANEwhen it's comin' from the leftThu Mar 20 1997 11:088
    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
843.5ThanksUSPS::FPRUSSFrank Pruss, 202-232-7347Thu Mar 20 1997 11:146
    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
843.6NOTIME::SACKSGerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085Thu Mar 20 1997 11:241
Putting a time limit on an amendment is fairly recent.
843.7Soo ConfusingUSPS::FPRUSSFrank Pruss, 202-232-7347Thu Mar 20 1997 11:333
    Oh, an innovation is it?
    
    Conservatives are against it, then?
843.8OopsUSPS::FPRUSSFrank Pruss, 202-232-7347Thu Mar 20 1997 12:294
    Oh I just re-read Will, and the 27th is in there as "with one
    exception" qualifier.
    
    Sorry George.
843.9Income tax?MILKWY::JACQUESFri Mar 21 1997 15:098
    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
843.10nopeGAAS::BRAUCHERAnd nothing else mattersFri Mar 21 1997 15:139
  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
843.11ACISS2::LEECHTerminal PhilosophyFri Mar 21 1997 16:122
    Actually, the ratification has been in question... some claim that they
    were a state short for a 3/4 majority.
843.12LANDO::OLIVER_Bgonna have to eventually anywayFri Mar 21 1997 16:233
    .11
    
    perhaps they used the wrong tally sheet?
843.13Another Libertarian Myth? (No time limit specified)USPS::FPRUSSFrank Pruss, 202-232-7347Fri Mar 21 1997 20:0433
    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. 
843.14Why the income tax is invalidBIGQ::SORRELLSPut your behind in your pastMon Mar 24 1997 09:2410
    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. 
843.15USPS::FPRUSSFrank Pruss, 202-232-7347Mon Mar 24 1997 09:284
    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.
    
843.16ACISS2::LEECHTerminal PhilosophyMon Mar 24 1997 10:2712
    .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. 
843.17PENUTS::DDESMAISONSperson BMon Mar 24 1997 10:367
>           <<< Note 843.16 by ACISS2::LEECH "Terminal Philosophy" >>>

	You give 60% in taxes??



843.18BRITE::FYFEUse it up, wear it out, make it do, or do without.Mon Mar 24 1997 10:453
60% doesn't seem so much when you consider how many ways you are taxed
every day ....
843.19Stressed out just thinking about it!MILKWY::JACQUESMon Mar 24 1997 11:5047
    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
843.20PENUTS::DDESMAISONSperson BMon Mar 24 1997 12:0110
>                     <<< 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?


843.21Tax freedom day is in mid July, I believe.ACISS2::LEECHTerminal PhilosophyMon Mar 24 1997 13:218
    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
843.22NOTIME::SACKSGerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085Mon Mar 24 1997 14:031
What's taken out of your salary but not itemized on your pay stub?
843.23COVERT::COVERTJohn R. CovertMon Mar 24 1997 14:557
Sales taxes paid when making purchases.

Property tax.

Additional Federal Income or State income tax due.


843.24NOTIME::SACKSGerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085Mon Mar 24 1997 16:141
Sales tax and property tax aren't taken out of your salary.
843.25HIGHD::FLATMAN[email protected]Mon Mar 24 1997 16:288
>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
843.26NOTIME::SACKSGerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085Mon Mar 24 1997 16:301
By that argument, lunch gets taken out of your salary.
843.27HIGHD::FLATMAN[email protected]Mon Mar 24 1997 16:3812
>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
843.28NOTIME::SACKSGerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085Mon Mar 24 1997 16:455
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.
843.29I'll give you 2 points for deflection.HIGHD::FLATMAN[email protected]Mon Mar 24 1997 16:515
    RE: .28

    I guess that's why I put the little word "as" in .27.

    -- Dave
843.30BULEAN::BANKSSaturn SapTue Mar 25 1997 08:043
Re: Ratification:

I'm still deeply suspicious of W. Va's statehood.
843.31POWDML::HANGGELIBecause I Can.Tue Mar 25 1997 09:063
    
    Uh-oh.
    
843.32Back to Mexico!USPS::FPRUSSFrank Pruss, 202-232-7347Tue Mar 25 1997 09:101
    Ya, 'n I don't think mucha Texas or California, either.