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.
Oh, HECK NO! It is a free country, you can move. But to tax you less on the same income as someone in Idaho violates equal treatment under the law. The more fine points and judgments and rulings the government makes, the more corrupt it is. The COL adjustments would soon be a bastardized mess, like most things the government does.
People get different government benefits based on where they live. Based on your different great under the law out current system would be illegal with some paying a higher % because they earn more.
People get different government benefits based on where they live. Based on your different great under the law out current system would be illegal with some paying a higher % because they earn more.
Not sure I got your post but I think I did.
Referencing the bolded, it's called a "progressive tax" and it's used by every first world nation.
Oh, HECK NO! It is a free country, you can move. But to tax you less on the same income as someone in Idaho violates equal treatment under the law. The more fine points and judgments and rulings the government makes, the more corrupt it is. The COL adjustments would soon be a bastardized mess, like most things the government does.
How so? I don't think anyone could reasonably argue that the cost of living is higher in Idaho than in the NYC metropolitan area. Even City Data has a COL index marker. If it is 100, then you are taxed at the set rate. If it is over 100, your taxes are adjusted downward. If it is less than 100, then the taxes are adjusted upward. It's really a very simple and fair system. I'm not sure how it violates the equal protection clause. In fact, the current system violates the equal protection clause. Your tax burden versus cost of living should be equal, right now it is not.
Which wouldn't do jack except make them criminals. Cannot renounce your US citizenship to escape paying taxes.
Not quite, since the US is the only country in the world which taxes non resident citizens in the same manner as citizens. They could simply relocate, which wouldnt avoid the tax liabilities, and then renounce their citizenship.. Nothing criminal about renouncing citizenships.. Obama renounced his dual citizenship ages ago with another country.
Yeah, so do you think this free money appearing out of nowhere ought to be taxed LESS than the money we earn through sweat and hard work? I don't think so.
Then maybe the problem is the money earned through sweat and hard work is over taxed.
Then maybe the problem is the money earned through sweat and hard work is over taxed.
It shouldn't be taxed at all. An amazing yet lightly-known court opinion of the DC circuit actually ruled (a few years ago) that wages were not "income" under the 16th Amendment, but was later forced to redact its opinion under political pressure.
Good guy government. "Hey, thats half ours now you lowly pukes!!"
Work hard, luck out, find treasure on your own property, doesnt matter. The government gets to take what they feel is rightfully theirs. I hate the government more and more. The forceful over reaching hand that gets to take and then spend wildly. All the while, the elitists in DC are over paid and get the best benefits and whatnot as our expense.
I swear, the Founding Fathers would be rolling in their graves to see what's become of Government. Government is now everything that they feared. Overly powerful elitist jerks. And we as a people stand by and just laugh or shrug. We are pathetic as a whole.
I seriously doubt that. Especially considering that under ye olde common law any finds of this sort belonged 100% to the crown (the state).
Why would they even let the government know about their discovery?
The California Gold Rush would have never occurred if John Sutter had hired people who knew how to keep their traps shut(or paid them for their silence).
It shouldn't be taxed at all. An amazing yet lightly-known court opinion of the DC circuit actually ruled (a few years ago) that wages were not "income" under the 16th Amendment, but was later forced to redact its opinion under political pressure.
Could you cite this decision?
Harrier could probably find it on his own, but he would wager that many of us here would be interested in reading the opinion.
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.
