Taxes placed on exercising your rights

[Texashiker]

We know that states can not have a poll tax, but what about taxes on newspapers, bibles, having a political blog,,,,,,.

How is a poll tax any different then placing a tax on bibles, or the quran?

Can it be argued that the sales tax on a firearm is another form of poll tax?

To keep firearms out of the hands of poor people, the government has enacted a sales tax.

So should newspapers, magazines, firearms, religious materials,,, be taxed?

 

[nehalem256]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.
Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

 

[Texashiker]

shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.

If the right to vote is protected from taxation, what about other rights?

 

[nehalem256]

If the right to vote is protected from taxation, what about other rights?

They are not. A specific amendment, the 24th, was required to bar taxation on voting.

 

[QuantumPion]

They are not. A specific amendment, the 24th, was required to bar taxation on voting.

Yeah but the same logic of the 24th Amendment should apply to every other right. The only reason why we have a 24th Amendment is because they did tax voting, and enough people cared about it to change it. If the government enacted a tax in order to have a trial, people would complain and it would lead to another amendment preventing such a practice.

Sales taxes on newspapers and books is not the same situation, you don't have to pay a tax to write and publish a book, only to sell it. If you wrote a book and gave it away there would be no tax.

However, the National Firearms Act IS a tax on your right to own weapons deemed suitable for militia use via Miller. It would be nice if someone could bring a case before the S.C. arguing against the validity of the practice of banning certain firearms by taxing them excessively using the same logic as the 24th amendment. Today, to get a machine gun, silencer, or short barreled weapon transferred to you, you have to pay a $200 tax stamp. That may not seem like much now, but he reason why this was made a tax was because in the 1930's, $200 was a huge sum to pay and the purpose of the tax was exactly to ban them by taxing them. They couldn't outright ban the weapons due to the 2nd amendment.

 

[Texashiker]

They are not. A specific amendment, the 24th, was required to bar taxation on voting.

Ok, we need to think outside the box here.

The 24th bars taxing when someone votes.

Should that same principle apply to other rights?

 

[nehalem256]

Yeah but the same logic of the 24th Amendment should apply to every other right. The only reason why we have a 24th Amendment is because they did tax voting, and enough people cared about it to change it. If the government enacted a tax in order to have a trial, people would complain and it would lead to another amendment preventing such a practice.

Sales taxes on newspapers and books is not the same situation, you don't have to pay a tax to write and publish a book, only to sell it. If you wrote a book and gave it away there would be no tax.

However, the National Firearms Act IS a tax on your right to own weapons deemed suitable for militia use via Miller. It would be nice if someone could bring a case before the S.C. arguing against the validity of the practice of banning certain firearms by taxing them excessively using the same logic as the 24th amendment. Today, to get a machine gun, silencer, or short barreled weapon transferred to you, you have to pay a $200 tax stamp. That may not seem like much now, but he reason why this was made a tax was because in the 1930's, $200 was a huge sum to pay and the purpose of the tax was exactly to ban them by taxing them. They couldn't outright ban the weapons due to the 2nd amendment.

It would seem that the ACA court case is good precedence here. I think most people would agree you have a right not to purchase things. However, the SC upheld that the government can tax you for exercising that right.

In fact the 24th Amendment very clearly implies that poll taxes are legal as long as the election is only for state or local office

 

[nehalem256]

Should that same principle apply to other rights?

This is more complicated. Should pens be free from sales tax?

I think the most logical conclusion is that a tax that is specifically targeted toward a right is wrong. But a tax that is not specifically target toward a right should be allowed.

So it would be fine to subject magazines to a sales tax that was generally applicable to the sale of other items.

 

[thraashman]

I need to post in here to catch for posterity a time that I fully agree with nehalem.

 

[QuantumPion]

This is more complicated. Should pens be free from sales tax?


I think the most logical conclusion is that a tax that is specifically targeted toward a right is wrong. But a tax that is not specifically target toward a right should be allowed.

So it would be fine to subject magazines to a sales tax that was generally applicable to the sale of other items.

You don't need to buy a pen to have free speech. You can speak publicly. Or someone could give you a pen for free. With the NFA, you legally CAN NOT transfer to someone a restricted weapon without paying the tax. There is no way around the tax, and the purpose of the tax was specifically to defacto ban the weapons. The same way the poll tax was specifically done to defacto ban black people from voting in the south. In both cases the taxes specifically targeted a right.

 

[nehalem256]

You don't need to buy a pen to have free speech. You can speak publicly. Or someone could give you a pen for free. With the NFA, you legally CAN NOT transfer to someone a restricted weapon without paying the tax. There is no way around the tax, and the purpose of the tax was specifically to defacto ban the weapons. The same way the poll tax was specifically done to defacto ban black people from voting in the south. In both cases the taxes specifically targeted a right.

It appears that the Supreme Court agrees that taxing rights is allowed.

I would say that a general sales to on the sale of firearms should be allowed as an un-targeted tax, but the example you have would be prohibited.

It would seem that the quickest way to end taxes on rights would be for some right-wing state to enact an abortion tax.

 

[cybrsage]

It would seem that the quickest way to end taxes on rights would be for some right-wing state to enact an abortion tax.

You are right!

 

[Texashiker]

This is more complicated. Should pens be free from sales tax?

In some states farm supplies are tax free, and uncooked food is not taxed.

In Texas, I can go to the grocery store, buy an uncooked chicken, and not pay a single cent in sales tax.

So its not like "everything" is taxed.

 

[QuantumPion]

It appears that the Supreme Court agrees that taxing rights is allowed.

I would say that a general sales to on the sale of firearms should be allowed as an un-targeted tax, but the example you have would be prohibited.

It would seem that the quickest way to end taxes on rights would be for some right-wing state to enact an abortion tax.

Agreed.

 

[Wreckem]

It appears that the Supreme Court agrees that taxing rights is allowed.

I would say that a general sales to on the sale of firearms should be allowed as an un-targeted tax, but the example you have would be prohibited.

It would seem that the quickest way to end taxes on rights would be for some right-wing state to enact an abortion tax.

To tax abortion, you'd have to tax all medical services... Thats why the right hasn't tried to do such a thing.

 

[nehalem256]

To tax abortion, you'd have to tax all medical services... Thats why the right hasn't tried to do such a thing.

A specific tax on firearms ($200 in 1934 transfer fee) has already been mentioned in this thread.

The SC recently found a specific tax on not having health insurance legal.

There is no reason a specific tax on abortion would not be legal as well. I would suggest a $200 inflation adjusted amount $3400.

I would assume the real reason it has not been done as it would break with the Republican pledge of no new taxes :biggrin:

 

[QuantumPion]

A specific tax on firearms ($200 in 1934 transfer fee) has already been mentioned in this thread.

The SC recently found a specific tax on not having health insurance legal.

There is no reason a specific tax on abortion would not be legal as well. I would suggest a $200 inflation adjusted amount $3400.

I would assume the real reason it has not been done as it would break with the Republican pledge of no new taxes :biggrin:

It's not just inflation adjusted. You have to adjust for income standard as well. $200 in 1934 may be inflation adjusted to $3400 today, but the average wage in 1934 far lower. According to this wealth calculator, $200 in 1934 for the purpose of a tax would be the equivalent to $18,500 today (income value of a commodity)