Whenever income taxes comes up, some idiot always says something like "It's in the Constitution!!". Yes, back in February of 1913, the 16th Amendment was ratified and added the provision to let Congress tax income.

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.

So, yes, for some stupid reason Congress and the States ratified more ways for the Federal Government to collect taxes. Sure, they had created an income tax before to pay for the Civil War that was equal for everyone making more than $800 a year. But, it had a sunset clause and was removed by 1872. But, as today, that didn't stop the socialists from calling for a renewed income tax and that it be a graduated income tax.

Just remember, socialists want income taxes

The people backing the income tax were the Democratic party, the Socialist party and progressive in the Republican party. All of these groups have one thing in common: more control by the Federal government. President Taft had suggested a 2% tax on corporate income as a way to be fair about taxing income. Well, you know where we are now.

The reason I am writing this article was due to a Twitter post about the debate between Cruz and Sanders about the Estate Tax or more appropriately, the Death Tax.

~ Source : https://twitter.com/tedcruz/status/920827470961618946

As a socialist, Bernie Sanders is all about getting every bit of money that people accumulate and giving it to the government. I won't say "give it to the poor", because unless you are an idiot, you know that the government will not give the money to the poor.

President Trump is planning on eliminating the Estate Tax as part of his tax reform plan. For most people, they don't think the Estate Tax affects them. It is only for those individuals with USD $5.5 million and couples with USD $11 million in assets that they want to pass down to their children or heirs.

While those amounts sound like a lot and would only affect a small amount of people, it does affect family businesses and farms. Unless the business has paid off the likes of people like Warren Buffet, who pushes for estate taxes while offering services to avoid estate taxes, the business will have to sell off assets in order to pay for the tax. Many family farms and small businesses have been sold on the auction block because the wealth is in the land, building and the machines that make up the business and the family farm. Regardless if the tax mostly affects stored wealth, it is not a fair tax, because tax has already been paid on that wealth multiple times.

As part of the Twitter discussion, I responded to some socialist, that the Constitution was amended in order for the Federal government to make take income taxes. The response was typical.

As you can see by my response, I know that there is a BIG difference between the Bill of Rights and the amendments that followed. The Constitution itself is a limitation of government. The Founders had declared their independence from a tyrannical government that treated the colonists as 2nd class citizens. Everything in the Constitution is about what the government can do and how it is limited in doing those thing. The idea was to keep the Federal government strong enough to keep the states together (The Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union between the States was not doing the job), but weak enough that it couldn't strong arm the States and the People. The first 9 amendments in the Bill of Rights are in direct response to the things that the British government would do to the colonists leading up to the American Revolution. They use words like "shall make no", "shall not", "no" and "not". Almost every single one of the amendments contains "no" and "not", a negative against the government.

As I pointed out in the Tweet, the Constitution itself would not have been ratified without the Bill of Rights. The Heritage Foundation has an article where they debate whether or not that was true.
Securing Liberty: The Purpose and Importance of the Bill of Rights

While most historians still believe that it was the only way for several states to ratify the Constitution, in the end, the Bill of Rights may have been created to keep the People informed of what their rights are and that those rights are not given by the government. To this point, The Founders must have been able to see the future. The People are no longer educated on the purpose of the Constitution or why it was leaps and bounds different than anything else at the time. There are too many people looking to the Federal government for a handout and blaming others for their own personal choices.

A poor man has never given a person a job

This is a statement that has been said by many, when people point to "the rich" as the boogeyman for their problems. It seems obvious to me, that a person is rich due to their ability to accumulate wealth. For the most part, people accumulate wealth by providing good and services that people want to buy. In most cases, the one person providing those goods and services, will have to employ other people to help with those actions. And, as many self-made millionaires will tell you, they put in a lot of time and sacrifice in order to get to where they are.

If you bemoan the farmer who is worth $10 million or more, try waking up every morning before the sun to start chores and finishing work after the sun goes down. If you bemoan the small businesswoman who has made good for herself, try to imagine the long nights she spent each doing work when her business wasn't open, so that it could be open in the morning for her customers. If you bemoan the inventor that made a killing selling their widget, try to imagine the time they spent actually learning and studying, while you decided to play and have fun.

The alternative, socialism, is not the rainbowed utopia that those pushing it would want you to believe. If your effort is rewards the same as someone who does less, soon you will do less too. When everyone gives up putting in the effort, because the reward is the same, then no progress is made. Not very progressive, if you think about it.

Sometimes I agree with one of the arguments against the Bill of Rights. By not having them, it requires Congress and The People to look to the Constitution and know that the government is limited to what is written within its articles. By having the Bill of Rights, it might confuse people into thinking that the government can create rights. We have obviously seen that with things like the call for health care as being a right.

Anything that requires someone else to do something for you in order for you to have it, is not a right.

The government doesn't give me the right to speak freely or to own guns. I had those rights. The Bill of Rights prevents the government from taking those away from The People.

The Bill of Rights

~ source : https://www.billofrightsinstitute.org/founding-documents/bill-of-rights/

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Amendment III

No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment V

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 offense 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.

Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

Amendment VII

In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Amendment VIII

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.