California income taxes
12-03-2019, 10:47 PM
#182
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2017
Posts: 270
I think the same person runs both accounts and really misses the debate team.
12-04-2019, 10:15 AM
#183
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2016
Posts: 1,588
You do know that if the income tax was made unconstitutional again, no state or municipality would be able to institute it, right? The 16th amendment certainly has EVERYTHING to do with it!
The 16th amendment made it constitutional not just for the federal government, but for all governments to institute it. Supremacy clause
Anyway, there is a vehicle currently being promoted to do just such a thing. Convention of States Action. It’s all in article V.
The 16th amendment made it constitutional not just for the federal government, but for all governments to institute it. Supremacy clause
Anyway, there is a vehicle currently being promoted to do just such a thing. Convention of States Action. It’s all in article V.
Last edited by ItnStln; 12-04-2019 at 10:47 AM.
12-04-2019, 10:27 AM
#184
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2016
Posts: 1,588
While an unpopular view, I have a problem with SS. The entire premise that you can guarantee social security for me 30+ years from now by making me pay 100% for people retired today is absolutely ridiculous. The math won’t work in the long term. You have to make huge assumptions about the future work force, their population, their salaries, and then be entirely reliant on that. The better way to do it would be to take 50% of your money for current retirees but the other 50% of your money be put in a retirement fund for you, consisting of your choice of mutual funds, bonds, stocks, etc. and let that provide for you. Paying 6.2% of your salary (to $133k) to current retirees and then just assuming you’ll get yours 30+ years from now based on those people working, good luck. I’d MUCH rather hold that 6.2% into a mutual fund that I know will work for me over 30 years. If the idea really is to provide financial security for when we retire, we should be in control of our money. Not the government.
12-04-2019, 12:53 PM
#185
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2017
Posts: 2,122
As to the point raised at an elevated volume about how the constitution is “PLAIN ENGLISH” than can you explain how the 1st amendment (free speech) starts as “congress shall make no law...” and yet we have numerous laws concerning speech?
Or the second amendment (guns) “...militia, militia, militia, cannot be infringed...” for over two hundred years the 2nd amendment was considered to be about militias and not an expression of an individuals right to gun ownership. That was until 2008 in the heller decision.
Point is its complicated. People study this stuff their whole lives and questions remain. Interpretations vary.
Or the second amendment (guns) “...militia, militia, militia, cannot be infringed...” for over two hundred years the 2nd amendment was considered to be about militias and not an expression of an individuals right to gun ownership. That was until 2008 in the heller decision.
Point is its complicated. People study this stuff their whole lives and questions remain. Interpretations vary.
It is in PLAIN English. Read it for yourself! We know what each word meant at the time it was written. Your point about the first amendment is precisely what I’m referring to. It says “congress” shall make no law... The fist amendment applies to CONGRESS and no one else. How else should we interpret that? By letting politicians with agendas appoint other humans with agendas to tell us what the word congress means?
And your second amendment point is not valid anyway. It’s not just about militias. That’s just what people with agendas try to convince us it means. But if you actually READ the rest of it, it says, “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” How is people supposed to be interpreted other than human beings? Only people in black robes and agendas appointed by politicians with agendas would try to convince the people it means something else other than human beings.
People study this their whole lives to try to figure out a way to make it mean something other than what it meant when it was written.
If we want the constitution to mean something else than what it meant when it was written, the founders gave us a whole article in it on different ways to change it if it no longer works for us. Just persuade your fellow citizen instead of getting activist judges to legislate from the bench.
12-04-2019, 01:03 PM
#186
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2017
Posts: 2,122
California income taxes
Throwing the baby out with the bath water I see.
Alexander Hamilton, Report on Manufactures
5 Dec. 1791Papers 10:302--4
A Question has been made concerning the Constitutional right of the Government of the United States to apply this species of encouragement, but there is certainly no good foundation for such a question. The National Legislature has express authority "To lay and Collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the Common defence and general welfare" with no other qualifications than that "all duties, imposts and excises, shall be uniform throughout the United states, that no capitation or other direct tax shall be laid unless in proportion to numbers ascertained by a census or enumeration taken on the principles prescribed in the Constitution, and that "no tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any state." These three qualifications excepted, the power to raise money is plenary, and indefinite; and the objects to which it may be appropriated are no less comprehensive, than the payment of the public debts and the providing for the common defence and "general Welfare." The terms "general Welfare" were doubtless intended to signify more than was expressed or imported in those which Preceded; otherwise numerous exigencies incident to the affairs of a Nation would have been left without a provision. The phrase is as comprehensive as any that could have been used; because [Volume 2, Page 447] it was not fit that the constitutional authority of the Union, to appropriate its revenues shou'd have been restricted within narrower limits than the "General Welfare" and because this necessarily embraces a vast variety of particulars, which are susceptible neither of specification nor of definition.
It is therefore of necessity left to the discretion of the National Legislature, to pronounce, upon the objects, which concern the general Welfare, and for which under that description, an appropriation of money is requisite and proper. And there seems to be no room for a doubt that whatever concerns the general Interests of learning of Agriculture of Manufactures and of Commerce are within the sphere of the national Councils as far as regards an application of Money.
The only qualification of the generallity of the Phrase in question, which seems to be admissible, is this--That the object to which an appropriation of money is to be made be General and not local; its operation extending in fact, or by possibility, throughout the Union, and not being confined to a particular spot.
No objection ought to arise to this construction from a supposition that it would imply a power to do whatever else should appear to Congress conducive to the General Welfare. A power to appropriate money with this latitude which is granted too in express terms would not carry a power to do any other thing, not authorised in the constitution, either expressly or by fair implication.
The Founders' Constitution
Volume 2, Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1, Document 21
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/found...a1_8_1s21.html
The University of Chicago Press
The Papers of Alexander Hamilton. Edited by Harold C. Syrett et al. 26 vols. New York and London: Columbia University Press, 1961--79. See also: Federalist
Alexander Hamilton, Report on Manufactures
5 Dec. 1791Papers 10:302--4
A Question has been made concerning the Constitutional right of the Government of the United States to apply this species of encouragement, but there is certainly no good foundation for such a question. The National Legislature has express authority "To lay and Collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the Common defence and general welfare" with no other qualifications than that "all duties, imposts and excises, shall be uniform throughout the United states, that no capitation or other direct tax shall be laid unless in proportion to numbers ascertained by a census or enumeration taken on the principles prescribed in the Constitution, and that "no tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any state." These three qualifications excepted, the power to raise money is plenary, and indefinite; and the objects to which it may be appropriated are no less comprehensive, than the payment of the public debts and the providing for the common defence and "general Welfare." The terms "general Welfare" were doubtless intended to signify more than was expressed or imported in those which Preceded; otherwise numerous exigencies incident to the affairs of a Nation would have been left without a provision. The phrase is as comprehensive as any that could have been used; because [Volume 2, Page 447] it was not fit that the constitutional authority of the Union, to appropriate its revenues shou'd have been restricted within narrower limits than the "General Welfare" and because this necessarily embraces a vast variety of particulars, which are susceptible neither of specification nor of definition.
It is therefore of necessity left to the discretion of the National Legislature, to pronounce, upon the objects, which concern the general Welfare, and for which under that description, an appropriation of money is requisite and proper. And there seems to be no room for a doubt that whatever concerns the general Interests of learning of Agriculture of Manufactures and of Commerce are within the sphere of the national Councils as far as regards an application of Money.
The only qualification of the generallity of the Phrase in question, which seems to be admissible, is this--That the object to which an appropriation of money is to be made be General and not local; its operation extending in fact, or by possibility, throughout the Union, and not being confined to a particular spot.
No objection ought to arise to this construction from a supposition that it would imply a power to do whatever else should appear to Congress conducive to the General Welfare. A power to appropriate money with this latitude which is granted too in express terms would not carry a power to do any other thing, not authorised in the constitution, either expressly or by fair implication.
The Founders' Constitution
Volume 2, Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1, Document 21
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/found...a1_8_1s21.html
The University of Chicago Press
The Papers of Alexander Hamilton. Edited by Harold C. Syrett et al. 26 vols. New York and London: Columbia University Press, 1961--79. See also: Federalist
No, I think you are just misunderstanding what he is saying. The part I highlighted is key. Yes, its true that congress has almost limitless taxing and appropriating authority (especially after the 16th amendment). But like Hamilton said, “A power to appropriate money with this latitude which is granted too in express terms would not carry a power to do any other thing, not authorised in the constitution, either expressly or by fair implication.”
I’m just emphasizing the part where we disagree and Hamilton agrees with what I’m trying to say. That is that congress can not “do any other thing, not authorized in the constitution...” Meaning that congress can tax and appropriate all they want as long as it’s constitutional (conforms to other restrictions in other parts of the constitution, either expressly [enumerated powers clause] or by implication).
12-04-2019, 01:23 PM
#187
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2006
Position: 737 FO
Posts: 2,370
As to the point raised at an elevated volume about how the constitution is “PLAIN ENGLISH” than can you explain how the 1st amendment (free speech) starts as “congress shall make no law...” and yet we have numerous laws concerning speech?
Or the second amendment (guns) “...militia, militia, militia, cannot be infringed...” for over two hundred years the 2nd amendment was considered to be about militias and not an expression of an individuals right to gun ownership. That was until 2008 in the heller decision.
Point is its complicated. People study this stuff their whole lives and questions remain. Interpretations vary.
Or the second amendment (guns) “...militia, militia, militia, cannot be infringed...” for over two hundred years the 2nd amendment was considered to be about militias and not an expression of an individuals right to gun ownership. That was until 2008 in the heller decision.
Point is its complicated. People study this stuff their whole lives and questions remain. Interpretations vary.
The militia was considered all able bodied male residents who would show up with their own weapons when called upon, the government did not provide any weapons at all.
I think Alaska and Texas are the only two states that actually have active sanctioned militias. In Alaska every male resident is constitutionally part of it just "inactive" while the ASDF is the active component tasked with providing command and control if the militia is activated.
12-04-2019, 04:15 PM
#188
Stands to be Corrected
Joined APC: Mar 2018
Position: C-17 / 7ER
Posts: 323
No politics at the table!
Geez it seems like your wives put muzzles on you guys over Thanksgiving. Now you’re trying to get it all out on an airline forum. Please don’t stop. It’s actually quite entertaining/informative. It also sounds like some real progress is being made.
12-05-2019, 10:27 AM
#189
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2007
Position: 7ERA
Posts: 1,232
As to the point raised at an elevated volume about how the constitution is “PLAIN ENGLISH” than can you explain how the 1st amendment (free speech) starts as “congress shall make no law...” and yet we have numerous laws concerning speech?
Or the second amendment (guns) “...militia, militia, militia, cannot be infringed...” for over two hundred years the 2nd amendment was considered to be about militias and not an expression of an individuals right to gun ownership. That was until 2008 in the heller decision.
Point is its complicated. People study this stuff their whole lives and questions remain. Interpretations vary.
Or the second amendment (guns) “...militia, militia, militia, cannot be infringed...” for over two hundred years the 2nd amendment was considered to be about militias and not an expression of an individuals right to gun ownership. That was until 2008 in the heller decision.
Point is its complicated. People study this stuff their whole lives and questions remain. Interpretations vary.
12-05-2019, 11:32 AM
#190
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2008
Posts: 553
What I’m saying is that particular parts of the constitution have been viewed differently by authoritative persons over the centuries. That it’s not as plain as some would suggest.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
wannabepilot
Hangar Talk
0
04-25-2008 09:19 PM
