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.
Those percentages are not all workers. They include retirees, as the Tax Policy Center link above indicates.
Quote:
Originally Posted by alphamale
Read the Constitution. It is clearly spelled out.
My argument is proven. Yours is not.
But I fully understand how a leftie wouldn't want to comprehend the Constitution....it goes against all of your "principles".
Actually, it's clear you can't comprehend the Constitution.
You *proved* nothing. You merely made assertions. Quoting the applicable Constitutional Articles and Sections would be a start. Otherwise, your argument fails the old 'show me in the Constitution where it says the Congress can't do that' test.
What you are asserting is that the notion of a progressive tax system, which has been around since the time of Abraham Lincoln, is unconstitutional -- a notion that is preposterous on its face.
Those percentages are not all workers. They include retirees, as the Tax Policy Center link above indicates.
Actually in the long run it's everybody, not just workers.
The government is getting revenue from only 49% of Americans.
Ultimately this is what it all boils down to..how much revenue is the FedGov taking in whether you work or not.
49% cannot support US spending the way it is with no end in sight.
Those percentages are not all workers. They include retirees, as the Tax Policy Center link above indicates.
.
they include ONLY those who FILE
as per the IRS 47-49% of THOSE WHO FILE have a zero to negative tax liability
many retiries (like those earning only SS, or small pensions) dont earn ENOUGH to even FILE...and the IRS or that tax center cant GUESS how many would be a negative liability because they dont FILE...the numbers are based ONLY on those who FILE
you dont NEED to file if:
Married, filing jointly, both spouses over 65: you earn less than $20,900
Single, over 65: less than $10,750
but you may WANT to file to get back anything withheld , an EIC or a stimuilas chek (if there is one)
some of the 47-49% are even well off or semi rich, but have losses or deductions that offset the tax...most are lower income LARGE families (a family with 5 kids will get 5k CREDIT after all dedectios of taxes..thats why they may have paid 4k in income AND PAYroll but will get 8k back (the government paying then 3k while they pay nothing))
Last edited by workingclasshero; 01-11-2012 at 01:09 PM..
Those percentages are not all workers. They include retirees, as the Tax Policy Center link above indicates.
Actually, it's clear you can't comprehend the Constitution.
You *proved* nothing. You merely made assertions. Quoting the applicable Constitutional Articles and Sections would be a start. Otherwise, your argument fails the old 'show me in the Constitution where it says the Congress can't do that' test.
What you are asserting is that the notion of a progressive tax system, which has been around since the time of Abraham Lincoln, is unconstitutional -- a notion that is preposterous on its face.
I'm sorry that you lack the necessary tools to comprehend the founding document of America.
There is no authority in the Constitution which allows congress to tax some and not others.
What I have stated was that the poor pay taxes (i.e. sales, payroll, gasoline, etc.) but don't pay income taxes. In fact, most workers pay more payroll taxes than income taxes.
The right-wing uses the slight of hand of saying 'taxes' as a proxy for 'income taxes.'
And what has been shown and proven is that due to refundable tax credits, many of the poorest have those payroll taxes offset.
I'm sorry that you lack the necessary tools to comprehend the founding document of America.
There is no authority in the Constitution which allows congress to tax some and not others.
Let me know when you find it.
Then why don't you go to court and assert that argument? They'll laugh you out of court. It's been nearly 100 years since the 16th Amendment was passed. Do you think that in that time everyone else lacked your skilled legal mind?
Then why don't you go to court and assert that argument? They'll laugh you out of court. It's been nearly 100 years since the 16th Amendment was passed. Do you think that in that time everyone else lacked your skilled legal mind?
The 16th amendment allows for the federal government to "lay and collect taxes from whatever source derived".
The enumerated powers describe what the tax revenue can be spent on.
Read them sometimes.
Using revenue collected from one citizen to support another is unconstitutional.
Might be but FDR changed all that during the Great Depression and it has only ballooned into the beast we have to feed today.
The progressives stopped teaching the constitution some time before that.
The American people of that era were scared and stupid, so it was easy to "capitalize on a crisis".
This same description continues to this day.
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.
