To me, as a reader trying to understand the point trying to be made regarding "subsidies" and Corporate welfare", Some how it went to the issues of Private property rights and all earned money belongs to the government..... that is the basis for my remarks.....
But to your point....It goes back to the same thing..."write off" or whatever term you wish to use...it is still resulting in less revenue to the treasury than otherwise would have occurred.. without a "write off" Such Write offs reduce the amount of taxable income...key word..reduce....meaning less was received than otherwise. The bottom line result is the same....less tax revenue and more to the Corporate bottom line....Same result...different terms to describe..I'm not trying to justify any thing..just my opinion on the parsing of words...
Furthermore...I think everyone understands what Private Property means.... there is not any doubt about that...So I'm not sure what your point is on that....
Regarding the 16th amendment..In 1895, in the Supreme Court case of
Pollock v Farmer's Loan and Trust (157 U.S. 429), the Court disallowed a federal tax on income from real property. The tax was designed to be an indirect tax, which would mean that states need not contribute portions of a whole relative to its census figures. The Court, however, ruled that the tax was a direct tax and subject to apportionment. This was the last in a series of conflicting court decisions dating back to the Civil War. Between 1895 and 1909, when the amendment was passed by Congress, the Court began to back down on its position, as it became clear not only to accountants but to everyone that the solvency of the nation was in jeopardy. In a series of cases, the definition of "direct tax" was modified, bent, twisted, and coaxed to allow more taxation efforts that approached an income tax. Finally, with the ratification of the
16th Amendment, any doubt was removed. The text of the Amendment makes it clear that though the categories of direct and indirect taxation still exist, any determination that income tax is a direct tax will be irrelevant, because taxes on incomes, from salary or from real estate, are explicitly to be treated as indirect. The Congress passed the Amendment on July 12, 1909, and it was ratified on February 3, 1913..
And the 17th amendment..One of the most common critiques of the
Framers is that the government that they created was, in many ways, undemocratic. There is little doubt of this, and it is so by design. The
Electoral College, by which we choose our President, is one example. The appointment of judges is another. And the selection of Senators not by the people but by the state legislatures, is yet another. The Senatorial selection system eventually became fraught with problems, with consecutive state legislatures sending different Senators to Congress, forcing the Senate to work out who was the qualified candidate, or with the selection system being corrupted by bribery and corruption. In several states, the selection of Senators was left up to the people in referendum, where the legislature approved the people's choice and sent him or her to the Senate. Articles written by early 20th-century muckrakers also provided grist for the popular-election mill. The
17th Amendment did away with all the ambiguity with a simple premise — the Senators would be chosen by the people, just as Representatives are. Of course, since the candidates now had to cater to hundreds of thousands, or millions, of people instead of just a few hundred, other issues, such as campaign finances, were introduced. The 17th is not a panacea, but it brings government closer to the people. ... I don't see Marxism in either..It would rather appear that the 17th amendment made us more of a Representative Republic...not less so.....And we are currently not a Democratic socialist Government.....We are actually closer to a state of Marxism. which has been described as government representation through a
corporatist system....the merging of Government and Corporations...and with the Money that is funneled into
both major parties to "buy" politicians to advance their agenda can be seen happening at all levels of Government..
The whole thing about Taxing and budgeting is another topic...but I think most can agree on the fact that The current tax system is broken and needs some fixing....I'm quite sure there are options available to change existing tax codes...but it is clear that NEITHER party is going to do much about that.....
.I'm sure you'll disagree with this...but that is what makes things interesting.....I apologize for the long post....I'll try and keep it less wordy...or windy as some may see it...in the future...