• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

I have a question about money = speech

B

bfdd

Lifer
If money is speech and the first amendment clearly states.

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.
Click to expand...

that Congress shall make no law prohibiting or abridging the freedom of speech, wouldn't taxation be against the law since Congress created those tax laws? Taxation is a form of limiting what I can spend my money on, kind of like telling me what I can or can't say(banning words). Does this make sense to anyone else or am I just being silly?

btw my goal isn't to demonize taxation, I'm curious if they legitimately screwed the pooch on this.
 
Yes, they screwed up and you are the first person ever to notice. Write your congressman and tell him or her and income tax will be repealed next week.
 
By the way, they meant that speech equals money because they meant to say fee speech, not free speech. You can speak if you can pay the fee.
 
Your premise is incorrect. Money isn't considered speech. What it does is allow people or organizations to be heard through the use of advertising etc. If the sole use of money was for that purpose then you might have an argument, but the equivalency you make does not exist. Think about it. If money is speech and tomatoes have a dollar value then tomatoes are speech. It's about context.
 
Moonbeam said:
Yes, they screwed up and you are the first person ever to notice. Write your congressman and tell him or her and income tax will be repealed next week.
Click to expand...

Like I said, that is not the point of this thread. I'm legitimately curious if they screwed the pooch and fucked it over. If money is speech and what I spend my money on is my speech, then the government is abridging my freedom of speech by banning certain substances I could spend my money on. This is the kind of arguments I'm looking at and if money = speech, then logically that other part would make sense right? Or like I asked am I just fucked up?

Hayabusa, that's right. I thought about that and I'll compare it to banning a word. Banning a word is the same as taking my money away. If I have a vocabulary of 1000 words and one of those words is "pineapple", you then ban the word "pineapple" I'm left with 999 words I can now use, legally. If I have 1000 dollars, which I could spend on something and want to spend on something, then you come and go "nope give me 1 dollar" you're infringing on my right to spend my money how I see fit, my SPEECH. how is "you can't say that" any different than "you must spend your money on this". Same thing, I'm being forced to use my speech in a way that isn't free.
 
Last edited:
JSt0rm, I don't know how many times I have to tell you I have no fucking clue what you are talking about with this "12k a year" non-sense. I have said numerous times what my profession is on this forum and what I make. Stop confusing me with some other moron. 12k a year?

Again, this isn't about me wanting or not wanting to pay taxes. This is about a possible loop hole and possible consequences.
 
bfdd said:
JSt0rm, I don't know how many times I have to tell you I have no fucking clue what you are talking about with this "12k a year" non-sense. I have said numerous times what my profession is on this forum and what I make. Stop confusing me with some other moron. 12k a year?

Again, this isn't about me wanting or not wanting to pay taxes. This is about a possible loop hole and possible consequences.
Click to expand...
oh yes of course a possible loop hole. Let me know how that works out. I would certainly take advantage if it works. Hell if it works and you tell me I'll pay you 5k
 
JSt0rm said:
oh yes of course a possible loop hole. Let me know how that works out. I would certainly take advantage if it works. Hell if it works and you tell me I'll pay you 5k
Click to expand...

Man you just don't want to have a discussion period huh? Does thinking hurt your head? How fucking pathetic of you to come in here and have nothing to say about the topic besides trolling and flaming.
 
My job is thinking. So excuse me if I dont want to come here and listen to your da vinci code moments seriously.
 
JSt0rm said:
My job is thinking. So excuse me if I dont want to come here and listen to your da vinci code moments seriously.
Click to expand...

Your job must eat up all your brain cycles then because I honestly can't think of a single post on these forums that is "thought" out from you. No one who "thinks" would continually flame the wrong person for the wrong thing. Idiot.
 
bfdd said:
Your job must eat up all your brain cycles then because I honestly can't think of a single post on these forums that is "thought" out from you. No one who "thinks" would continually flame the wrong person for the wrong thing. Idiot.
Click to expand...

I come here to relax. Relaxing for me means treating you like shit. Congratulations.
 
Hayabusa Rider said:
Your premise is incorrect. Money isn't considered speech. What it does is allow people or organizations to be heard through the use of advertising etc. If the sole use of money was for that purpose then you might have an argument, but the equivalency you make does not exist. Think about it. If money is speech and tomatoes have a dollar value then tomatoes are speech. It's about context.
Click to expand...

Ding. That is the end of the OP, regardless of whether the thread continues on tangential issues.
 
woolfe, I get what he was saying. Money isn't speech, spending money is the speech, even still taxation is still an infringement because you're forcing someone to spend their money(use their speech), which would seem to fall again under infringing on freedom of speech. They can't make you say the pledge of allegiance.
 
If spending one's own money was just another version of speech there would not be restrictions on how much one could donate to a political candidate.

I opine that spending one's own money ought be treated as speech, free speech, and there ought not be any restrictions on that spending.......except that spending ought be taxed, NOT income.

Hope this is not a derailment.......
 
This is kind of an interesting thought. If campaign finance laws restrict a corporations ability to spend unlimited amounts of money on political ads (i.e. restricting their free speech), why can't tax laws be considered to do the same thing? Or is this a matter of one part of the constitution trumping the other?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top