I believe the progressive tax scheme is a violation

[kinggovernor]

of the 5th admendment and the 14th admendment

what do you guys think

[6SpeedTA95]

Amendments in question

5th
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.



14th
Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section. 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Section. 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section. 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section. 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

[Kytro]

I can't see any obvious arguments unless you are talking about property?

If so, how do you see it affecting specifically progressive taxes?

[RMNIXON]

Believe me if our founders had any clue what has been done with property rights and income they would have been much more specific. That includes the recent eminent domain garbage and property that cannot be developed because of environmental regulation without compensation. As for income tax, the idea that any public majority could simply vote to tax any smaller group in an unballanced manner would also get under their skin!

[RMNIXON]

......that and the progressive income tax was a commie pinko idea!

[kinggovernor]

Originally Posted by Kytro

I can't see any obvious arguments unless you are talking about property?

If so, how do you see it affecting specifically progressive taxes?

my money is my property

[kinggovernor]

Originally Posted by RMNIXON

......that and the progressive income tax was a commie pinko idea!

I am just trying to mix up the threads here a little bit there seems to be 10 threads about the same two topics.

[motivez]

I thought defacing bills was a crime of sorts?

[6SpeedTA95]

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

my money is my property

I agree.

[Kytro]

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

my money is my property

Indeed it is, but how is a progessive tax any different from a flat tax, or any tax?

[kinggovernor]

Originally Posted by Kytro

Indeed it is, but how is a progessive tax any different from a flat tax, or any tax?

I am not getting equal protection of my property, thus rights, if the government takes 10% of the income of those making 20k a year and 30% of my money if I make 60k a year(just an example). My rights are being violated.

[6SpeedTA95]

Originally Posted by Kytro

Indeed it is, but how is a progessive tax any different from a flat tax, or any tax?

Because a progressive tax robs progressively from those that make more.

[6SpeedTA95]

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

I am not getting equal protection of my property, thus rights, if the government takes 10% of the income of those making 20k a year and 30% of my money if I make 60k a year(just an example). My rights are being violated.

This is true.

[kinggovernor]

I think I am going to start making a thread a day about constitutional rights

[Kytro]

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

Because a progressive tax robs progressively from those that make more.

I understand this, I am trying to figure out how it differs constitutionally

[Kytro]

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

I am not getting equal protection of my property, thus rights, if the government takes 10% of the income of those making 20k a year and 30% of my money if I make 60k a year(just an example). My rights are being violated.

What rights specifically?

I mean if the goverment cannot take your property how can they tax you at all?

If they can take property, what specific rights are they violating by taking it unevenly.

[6SpeedTA95]

Originally Posted by Kytro

What rights specifically?

I mean if the goverment cannot take your property how can they tax you at all?

If they can take property, what specific rights are they violating by taking it unevenly.

They're violating equal protection by taxing unevenly.

[Kytro]

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

They're violating equal protection by taxing unevenly.

Seems like a bit of a stetch to me.

If I go to car dealer, and he charges me $30k for car, but charges you $40k for the same car, we both still have "equal" cars.

My opinion is that taxation should be limited because the nature of governmetn is to grow, and demand more money to feed it's growth.

[Scrum]

Let me get this straight, you are calling for a tax scheme where everyone pays the samer percentage, or a scheme where everyone pays the exact same amount?

[kinggovernor]

Originally Posted by Scrumtralecent

Let me get this straight, you are calling for a tax scheme where everyone pays the samer percentage, or a scheme where everyone pays the exact same amount?

I believe in a flat tax percentage