Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Amendment XIII, Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Quote:
Amendment XIV, Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
So the Constitution forbids progressive income taxation in two places, yet the "progressives" still charge full steam ahead with their class warfare, demanding the right to steal even more money from those they deem "rich". Why are those who make $250,000+ not entitled to the same privileges and immunities as those who make less? Why is it okay to force them into involuntary servitude? Why do Democrats continue to support modern day slavery?
So the Constitution forbids progressive income taxation in two places, yet the "progressives" still charge full steam ahead with their class warfare, demanding the right to steal even more money from those they deem "rich". Why are those who make $250,000+ not entitled to the same privileges and immunities as those who make less? Why is it okay to force them into involuntary servitude? Why do Democrats continue to support modern day slavery?
My grandmother always said that a little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing. Before citing the Constitution, get out a dictionary and look up slavery or indentured servitude, then take a day or two and learn what the citied sections of the Constitution actually means. And once you are done with those small tasks, figure out how a progressive tax structure has been in place since the passage of the 16th Amendment damn near 100 years ago.
Any other response would be a waste of time.
On edit: It is truly disgraceful that someone from Philadelphia of all places would be so uniformed about the Constitution.
Can't say as I agree with your liberal (pardon the pun) translation of the cited Amendments, but whatever.
Flat tax with ZERO loopholes is fine with me. Gonna guess that the rich and their accountants won't like it much though.
Flat taxes means that the rich will be extremely happy.
Flat taxes means that everyone pays the same amount of taxes. Now, say you're earning 50K and a rich person earns $100M. You two will pay the same amount of taxes (hence the word "flat"). Well guess what even if your pay 100% of your income in taxes, the rich will still pay less than 0.1%.
Progressive taxes means that the rich pays more. I don't see how getting rid of the progressive tax will make the rich unhappy.
Flat taxes means that the rich will be extremely happy.
Flat taxes means that everyone pays the same amount of taxes. Now, say you're earning 50K and a rich person earns $100M. You two will pay the same amount of taxes (hence the word "flat"). Well guess what even if your pay 100% of your income in taxes, the rich will still pay less than 0.1%.
Progressive taxes means that the rich pays more. I don't see how getting rid of the progressive tax will make the rich unhappy.
I'm well aware of what it means, thanks. Wondering whether you do. Flat tax means that everyone pays the same PERCENTAGE of their income to taxes, NOT the "same amount"... If that is what you meant, nevermind. Didn't sound like it.
Either way, it isn't the flat tax part of my proposal that would upset them.
So the Constitution forbids progressive income taxation in two places, yet the "progressives" still charge full steam ahead with their class warfare, demanding the right to steal even more money from those they deem "rich". Why are those who make $250,000+ not entitled to the same privileges and immunities as those who make less? Why is it okay to force them into involuntary servitude? Why do Democrats continue to support modern day slavery?
Oh well great! Sounds like a winner!
Just go get you a lawyer and tell it to the Judge!
Supreme Court here we come!...........Why hasn't anyone thought of this before?!
Alot of rich people that are making 100 million plus are in a position of power that directly effects the life of everyday people and the future of the nation.
The one evil thing that a progressive income tax does is to punish success and reward failure. Sounds like the good ol US since 1900 to me.
Not really when you consider that the wealthy don't have ALL of their money taxed at the highest rate, which is what the truly uneducated in this debate honestly believe....
I'd submit that this only reduces incentives to make more money if you are right at the line between two tax brackets. But lo and behold!!! We found a way around that. Give the extra to charity, squeeze below that line and VOILA!!! Problem gone!!!
The great thing about being wealthy is that you can afford an accountant to prepare your taxes and reduce them as much as humanly possible.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
