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.
You never fail in your attempts to embarrass yourself .. do you!
The German Hyperinflation, 1923
Quote:
In retrospect, you can trace the steps to hyperinflation, but some of the reasons remain cloudy. Germany abandoned the gold backing of its currency in 1914. The war was expected to be short, so it was financed by government borrowing, not by savings and taxation. In Germany prices doubled between 1914 and 1919.
So the printing presses ran, and once they began to run, they were hard to stop. The price increases began to be dizzying. Menus in cafes could not be revised quickly enough. A student at Freiburg University ordered a cup of coffee at a cafe. The price on the menu was 5,000 Marks. He had two cups. When the bill came, it was for 14,000 Marks. "If you want to save money," he was told, "and you want two cups of coffee, you should order them both at the same time."
Which court ruled that private property can be taken by the government without just compensation?
The US Supreme Court that taxation is not a violation of the 5th Amendment's "taking" clause.
Do I really have to repeat myself?
Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad.
One of Brushaber's contentions (contention #2) was that the tax amounted to a violation of the taking clause of the 5th Amendment, the court disagreed, differentiating between normal taxation and the seizure of property.
The Weimar papermark was pegged, whether you want to admit it or not, to the $132 billion gold marks Germany owned the allies in reparation payments.
It was not a free-floating fiat currency, it was a currency absolutely tied to it's massive hard-money (the allies insisted on being repaid with hard money) reparations debt. The victorious allies were not going to let the Germans simply produce more money in order to pay off their huge reparations debt without paying for it through inflation.
The US Supreme Court that taxation is not a violation of the 5th Amendment's "taking" clause.
Do I really have to repeat myself?
Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad.
One of Brushaber's contentions (contention #2) was that the tax amounted to a violation of the taking clause of the 5th Amendment, the court disagreed, differentiating between normal taxation and the seizure of property.
Doesn't apply to my point. The Court ruled that The Revenue Act does not violate the 5th Amendment's prohibition against the government taking property without due process of law. It did not rule on the 5th Amendment's "just compensation" requirement when the government takes private property for public use. That is still intact.
Even the IRS, as well, cites the Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad ruling and states only that it precludes the argument that "The Fifth Amendment prevents the federal government from taking property without due process of law" to avoid paying federal income tax. Internal Revenue Bulletin - April 4, 2005 - Rev. Rul. 2005-19
Doesn't apply to my point. The Court ruled that The Revenue Act does not violate the 5th Amendment's prohibition against the government taking property without due process of law. It did not rule on the 5th Amendment's "just compensation" requirement when the government takes private property for public use. That is still intact.
Even the IRS, as well, cites the Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad ruling and states only that it precludes the argument that "The Fifth Amendment prevents the federal government from taking property without due process of law" to avoid paying federal income tax. Internal Revenue Bulletin - April 4, 2005 - Rev. Rul. 2005-19
Brushaber says:
is asserted to be repugnant to due process of law as a taking of their property without compensation, and we recapitulate various contentions as to discrimination against corporations and against individuals
The court responded:
And no change in the situation here would arise even if it be conceded, as we think it must be, that this doctrine would have no application in a case where, although there was a seeming exercise of the taxing power, the act complained of was so arbitrary as to constrain to the conclusion that it was not the exertion of taxation, but a confiscation of property -- that is, a taking of the same in violation of the Fifth Amendment, or, what is equivalent thereto, was so wanting in basis for classification as to produce such a gross and patent inequality as to inevitably lead to the same conclusion.
The bolded part in the court's response is the differentiation.
The man is the chairman of Fox news. That's akin to being the grand wizard of the Klan.
What this guy thinks, doesn't matter, and is the OPPOSITE of what is right. The rich should have the most votes? Just plain stupid.
Actually, he's not the chairman. The OP lied. He is a former board member only. The Chairman of Fox News is Roger Ailes. The chairman of Newscorp is Rupert Murdock.
is asserted to be repugnant to due process of law as a taking of their property without compensation, and we recapitulate various contentions as to discrimination against corporations and against individuals
The court responded:
And no change in the situation here would arise even if it be conceded, as we think it must be, that this doctrine would have no application in a case where, although there was a seeming exercise of the taxing power, the act complained of was so arbitrary as to constrain to the conclusion that it was not the exertion of taxation, but a confiscation of property -- that is, a taking of the same in violation of the Fifth Amendment, or, what is equivalent thereto, was so wanting in basis for classification as to produce such a gross and patent inequality as to inevitably lead to the same conclusion.
The bolded part in the court's response is the differentiation.
For taxes on corporations. The court didn't rule on the Federal Individual Income Tax.
They already have free birth control, it's called abstinence. But of course, it's always someone elses responsibility right? That's the liberal answer for everything. They couldn't possibly NOT have children on their own, someone else has to pay for their birth control and support of them and the children they can't afford.
Quote:
Originally Posted by truerwords
Do you agree with Tom? Yes or No?
People have the right to vote for whatever they want. It is a free country. Got a problem with that?
Yes when they vote to spend other peoples money.
A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing, always to be followed by a dictatorship, then a monarchy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by truerwords
The constitution allows for whatever the heck people vote for.... So yes it does. Try again.
No it doesn't, did you fail civics in school? People don't vote on what is allowed by the constitution.
For taxes on corporations. The court didn't rule on the Federal Individual Income Tax.
Now you're just being obnoxious.
The court differentiated between the confiscation of property (eminent domain) and normal taxation.
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.
Who cares?
