5 ms·

This is not due to lobbying by Intuit. Their money isn't worth that much. What keeps this from happening in the US is Grover Norquist.

bandofthehawk 4y ago
> This is not due to lobbying by Intuit. Do you really believe this? There seems to have been quite a bit of lobbying by Intuit. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/CalFile https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/CalFile
- rootusrootus 4y ago
  > Do you really believe this? Yes. Go look up Grover Norquist. Intuit could give millions of dollars to the coffers of politicians and still not be anywhere even approaching the influence of Norquist.
lettergram 4y ago
[flagged]
- nonethewiser 4y ago
  I’m not sure most people know the history of income tax in the US.
  - lettergram 4y ago
    Indeed, for discussion around the income tax is 2:55 is when this gives the briefest description I can find https://youtu.be/IEXD8i8u-fY https://youtu.be/IEXD8i8u-fY Note: this is meant to be an introduction, each claim is debated all over the place. What’s not up for debate is the 5th amendment.
- returningfory2 4y ago
  I agree that there is sometimes tension between tax filing and the 5th Amendment. But aren't federal income taxes legally rock solid given that Congress is explicitly authorized to levy them in the 16th Amendment?
  - kstrauser 4y ago
    They are. I'm kind of surprised at the amount of what I'd consider to be borderline "sovereign citizen" commentary here.
    - rootusrootus 4y ago
      And this is just evening time. You really want to see it get weird, swing by HN on the weekend.
  - lettergram 4y ago
    Should read up on the history of the 16th amendment and debates around it. For instance; it was retroactive — they were already levying the tax. They then effectively didn’t pass it by the states in a way that they’d done previously, etc etc Regardless of the scandals there, simple question — does my 5th amendment right disappear because of a tax levy? No. Read the amendment: > 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. This doesn’t say I give up the right to self incrimination, nor the 4th amendment.
    - jldugger 4y ago
      > For instance; it was retroactive That doesn't matter in 2023. And it doesn't matter if the tax is applied retroactively -- its not a punishment for the crime of being rich or having income. > They then effectively didn’t pass it by the states in a way that they’d done previously, etc etc Who cares? It's literally enumerated in the constitution that amendments can be introduced by the legislature and ratification completed when Delaware ratified February 3, 1913. These are absolute non-issues, and the court filings from the 70's, as documented in Wikipedia, are clearly motivated reasoning and dismissed by judges. Moreover, if there were any legitimate foundation to overturning tax law, it would be fixed by constitutional amendment instantly.
- mminer237 4y ago
  What shaky ground do you see the income tax on?
  - pclmulqdq 4y ago
    Look up the controversies on the passage of the 16th amendment. Basically, state ratifications had possibly expired (if there really is a expiration date) or possibly been revoked (if they can really revoke ratification) for that amendment, enough for it to not pass, but the librarian of congress accepted it, and the Supreme Court decided that was okay. My personal conspiracy theory is that the current librarian of congress hasn't put the equal rights amendment into the constitution to avoid the 16th amendment being overturned in the inevitable legal challenges.
    - kelnos 4y ago
      > state ratifications had possibly expired (if there really is a expiration date) Pretty sure that's not a thing. You can't say "we ratify this, but only if it's fully adopted by X date". But hey, legislatures can argue whatever they want, and it's up to the courts to decide. And the amendment itself included no expiration date (unlike the equal rights amendment, so there's likely no connection there). > or possibly been revoked (if they can really revoke ratification) This is certainly contentious, and sure, is similar to issues around the ERA (though I think the issue with the ERA expiring is more serious than arguments around states revoking their ratification). My argument on this is that if a state could rescind ratification for an amendment that hasn't yet been adopted, why wouldn't they also be able to do that for amendments that have been adopted? The latter is (hopeflly) clearly absurd, so the former shouldn't be permitted either. Personally, as a matter of avoiding chaos, I think the system should be set up so there are no take-backsies, but unfortunately the constitution doesn't clarify that point. I think putting expiration dates on amendment proposals is a much more sane way to ensure that amendments aren't ratified and adopted mainly through inertia and long-term political games. But in the ERA's case I believe the argument that the expiration is not valid is because the expiration doesn't appear in the proposed text, just in the "foreward" that introduces the amendment. On the other side, there are some who believe that Congress doesn't have the power to extend the expiration date, as doing so would be effectively a new amendment proposal with zero ratifications. (I don't know where I personally stand on that from a legal perspective. I certainly want the ERA to be adopted -- I think it's patently disgusting that all 50 states wouldn't immediately ratify it without question in this day and age -- but not in a divisive way that reduces trust in the political system even further.)
- rootusrootus 4y ago
  > The income tax itself is on somewhat shaky legal ground Not according to the Supreme Court, and they have the only opinion that matters. > that’s why they never actually address it 26 U.S.C. defines an actual crime called 'tax evasion'
- Hello71 4y ago
  the IRS has several pages discussing frivolous tax arguments in extensive detail with numerous case law citations. your claim is indexed as "D.4. Contention: Taxpayers do not have to file returns or provide financial information because of the protection against self-incrimination found in the Fifth Amendment" https://www.irs.gov/privacy-disclosure/the-truth-about-frivolous-tax-arguments-section-i-d-to-e#contentiond4 https://www.irs.gov/privacy-disclosure/the-truth-about-frivo... which references seven court cases, in which several claimants were sanctioned for advancing frivolous tax arguments and others had criminal convictions upheld.
  - lettergram 4y ago
    Ah cool, so the government which is levying the taxes… and paying their salaries, claim it’s frivolous to argue any alternative point. Lol you can’t be serious? I’m sure we all agree it judges are humans and apply laws in bias ways. There are plenty of Supreme Court cases we would consider insane today. You’re not going to get any government official to claim “yes take my salary”. Not going to happen. I can read the bill of rights.
    - drivebycomment 4y ago
      A classical ad hominem, attacking the motive fallacy.
      - pclmulqdq 4y ago
        Ad hominem is not always a fallacy. This is an actual, material conflict of interest that the government has (which happens in all of tax law). The existence of that conflict does discount the validity of the sources somewhat, but it is an exercise for the reader to decide how much. Personally, I'm not so convinced by the 5th amendment vs tax returns argument, but that's not because a bunch of government lawyers are telling me that the 5th amendment doesn't apply.
- kelnos 4y ago
  > The IRS fundamentally breaks the 5th amendment against self-incrimination. That's a fairly novel legal theory that I'm pretty sure has no actual precedent to back it up. Sounds more like "sovereign citizen" nonsense. Yes, it is quite amusing that the IRS does expect you to report income earned through illegal activities, but you don't need to put down on your return "income of $50,000 through extortion" or whatever. Of course, it's no surprise that the kinds of people who make money through illegal means have no problem with avoiding paying tax on it. > The income tax itself is on somewhat shaky legal ground No it's not. Since you're so interested in constitutional amendments, you may want to read the text of the 16th.
commandlinefan 4y ago
> Grover Norquist This is the first time I've heard of this theory and Google doesn't seem to have heard of it either... can you expand? According to Wikipedia he's a flat-tax supporter.
- therealdrag0 4y ago
  From the guy himself https://www.huffpost.com/entry/grover-norquist-taxes_b_3005698 https://www.huffpost.com/entry/grover-norquist-taxes_b_30056... Tldr: conservatives who are anti tax want to make taxes painful to make citizens against them. They believe that simplifying taxes would make it easier for the govment to raise taxes, which they’re vehemently against.

bandofthehawk 4y ago

> This is not due to lobbying by Intuit. Do you really believe this? There seems to have been quite a bit of lobbying by Intuit. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/CalFile https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/CalFile

rootusrootus 4y ago
> Do you really believe this? Yes. Go look up Grover Norquist. Intuit could give millions of dollars to the coffers of politicians and still not be anywhere even approaching the influence of Norquist.

lettergram 4y ago

[flagged]

nonethewiser 4y ago
I’m not sure most people know the history of income tax in the US.
- lettergram 4y ago
  Indeed, for discussion around the income tax is 2:55 is when this gives the briefest description I can find https://youtu.be/IEXD8i8u-fY https://youtu.be/IEXD8i8u-fY Note: this is meant to be an introduction, each claim is debated all over the place. What’s not up for debate is the 5th amendment.
returningfory2 4y ago
I agree that there is sometimes tension between tax filing and the 5th Amendment. But aren't federal income taxes legally rock solid given that Congress is explicitly authorized to levy them in the 16th Amendment?
- kstrauser 4y ago
  They are. I'm kind of surprised at the amount of what I'd consider to be borderline "sovereign citizen" commentary here.
  - rootusrootus 4y ago
    And this is just evening time. You really want to see it get weird, swing by HN on the weekend.
- lettergram 4y ago
  Should read up on the history of the 16th amendment and debates around it. For instance; it was retroactive — they were already levying the tax. They then effectively didn’t pass it by the states in a way that they’d done previously, etc etc Regardless of the scandals there, simple question — does my 5th amendment right disappear because of a tax levy? No. Read the amendment: > 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. This doesn’t say I give up the right to self incrimination, nor the 4th amendment.
  - jldugger 4y ago
    > For instance; it was retroactive That doesn't matter in 2023. And it doesn't matter if the tax is applied retroactively -- its not a punishment for the crime of being rich or having income. > They then effectively didn’t pass it by the states in a way that they’d done previously, etc etc Who cares? It's literally enumerated in the constitution that amendments can be introduced by the legislature and ratification completed when Delaware ratified February 3, 1913. These are absolute non-issues, and the court filings from the 70's, as documented in Wikipedia, are clearly motivated reasoning and dismissed by judges. Moreover, if there were any legitimate foundation to overturning tax law, it would be fixed by constitutional amendment instantly.
mminer237 4y ago
What shaky ground do you see the income tax on?
- pclmulqdq 4y ago
  Look up the controversies on the passage of the 16th amendment. Basically, state ratifications had possibly expired (if there really is a expiration date) or possibly been revoked (if they can really revoke ratification) for that amendment, enough for it to not pass, but the librarian of congress accepted it, and the Supreme Court decided that was okay. My personal conspiracy theory is that the current librarian of congress hasn't put the equal rights amendment into the constitution to avoid the 16th amendment being overturned in the inevitable legal challenges.
  - kelnos 4y ago
    > state ratifications had possibly expired (if there really is a expiration date) Pretty sure that's not a thing. You can't say "we ratify this, but only if it's fully adopted by X date". But hey, legislatures can argue whatever they want, and it's up to the courts to decide. And the amendment itself included no expiration date (unlike the equal rights amendment, so there's likely no connection there). > or possibly been revoked (if they can really revoke ratification) This is certainly contentious, and sure, is similar to issues around the ERA (though I think the issue with the ERA expiring is more serious than arguments around states revoking their ratification). My argument on this is that if a state could rescind ratification for an amendment that hasn't yet been adopted, why wouldn't they also be able to do that for amendments that have been adopted? The latter is (hopeflly) clearly absurd, so the former shouldn't be permitted either. Personally, as a matter of avoiding chaos, I think the system should be set up so there are no take-backsies, but unfortunately the constitution doesn't clarify that point. I think putting expiration dates on amendment proposals is a much more sane way to ensure that amendments aren't ratified and adopted mainly through inertia and long-term political games. But in the ERA's case I believe the argument that the expiration is not valid is because the expiration doesn't appear in the proposed text, just in the "foreward" that introduces the amendment. On the other side, there are some who believe that Congress doesn't have the power to extend the expiration date, as doing so would be effectively a new amendment proposal with zero ratifications. (I don't know where I personally stand on that from a legal perspective. I certainly want the ERA to be adopted -- I think it's patently disgusting that all 50 states wouldn't immediately ratify it without question in this day and age -- but not in a divisive way that reduces trust in the political system even further.)
rootusrootus 4y ago
> The income tax itself is on somewhat shaky legal ground Not according to the Supreme Court, and they have the only opinion that matters. > that’s why they never actually address it 26 U.S.C. defines an actual crime called 'tax evasion'
Hello71 4y ago
the IRS has several pages discussing frivolous tax arguments in extensive detail with numerous case law citations. your claim is indexed as "D.4. Contention: Taxpayers do not have to file returns or provide financial information because of the protection against self-incrimination found in the Fifth Amendment" https://www.irs.gov/privacy-disclosure/the-truth-about-frivolous-tax-arguments-section-i-d-to-e#contentiond4 https://www.irs.gov/privacy-disclosure/the-truth-about-frivo... which references seven court cases, in which several claimants were sanctioned for advancing frivolous tax arguments and others had criminal convictions upheld.
- lettergram 4y ago
  Ah cool, so the government which is levying the taxes… and paying their salaries, claim it’s frivolous to argue any alternative point. Lol you can’t be serious? I’m sure we all agree it judges are humans and apply laws in bias ways. There are plenty of Supreme Court cases we would consider insane today. You’re not going to get any government official to claim “yes take my salary”. Not going to happen. I can read the bill of rights.
  - drivebycomment 4y ago
    A classical ad hominem, attacking the motive fallacy.
    - pclmulqdq 4y ago
      Ad hominem is not always a fallacy. This is an actual, material conflict of interest that the government has (which happens in all of tax law). The existence of that conflict does discount the validity of the sources somewhat, but it is an exercise for the reader to decide how much. Personally, I'm not so convinced by the 5th amendment vs tax returns argument, but that's not because a bunch of government lawyers are telling me that the 5th amendment doesn't apply.
kelnos 4y ago
> The IRS fundamentally breaks the 5th amendment against self-incrimination. That's a fairly novel legal theory that I'm pretty sure has no actual precedent to back it up. Sounds more like "sovereign citizen" nonsense. Yes, it is quite amusing that the IRS does expect you to report income earned through illegal activities, but you don't need to put down on your return "income of $50,000 through extortion" or whatever. Of course, it's no surprise that the kinds of people who make money through illegal means have no problem with avoiding paying tax on it. > The income tax itself is on somewhat shaky legal ground No it's not. Since you're so interested in constitutional amendments, you may want to read the text of the 16th.

commandlinefan 4y ago

> Grover Norquist This is the first time I've heard of this theory and Google doesn't seem to have heard of it either... can you expand? According to Wikipedia he's a flat-tax supporter.

therealdrag0 4y ago
From the guy himself https://www.huffpost.com/entry/grover-norquist-taxes_b_3005698 https://www.huffpost.com/entry/grover-norquist-taxes_b_30056... Tldr: conservatives who are anti tax want to make taxes painful to make citizens against them. They believe that simplifying taxes would make it easier for the govment to raise taxes, which they’re vehemently against.