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.
I did not vote for DJT, as I have stated on CD many times.
And as far as Fauxcahontas is concerned, it is actually far worse if she is a true believer in this wealth tax scheme than it simply being a dog whistle to the koolaid swilling, lemming far left.
Yet another example of the dictorial, authoritarian left and their nonsense.
Taxes were 90% under IKE. 75% or more until the late 1960's or later.
Not even a question. Any progressive tax structure is a "wealth tax"......
You'd have to be fairly ignorant of history to suggest that 30% or 45% is constitutional, but 70% isn't....especially since it was the LAW OF THE LAND for many decades.
Several states had wealth taxes. Florida had an "intangible assets" tax of 1.5 mills ($1,500 per million) and most counties in PA had a "personal property tax" of 4 mills ($4,000 per million). You reported the gross value of your holdings of stocks, bonds, mortgages, etc. Florida eliminated its wealth tax and most PA counties have also eliminated their wealth tax. To my knowledge, the taxes were voluntarily eliminated.
Its not right, just because someones rich doesn't mean you have the right to reach into their pockets and steal from them on an annual basis. Its not earned money, its already received money. Assets etc.. I am 100% against this and I am not rich. Democrats are thieves.
One needs to define "wealth" and "labor". If I make efforts to live off of capitol gains, are my efforts not considered labor to some degree?
No, your efforts to live off your capital gains aren't considered labor. Putting your money into an investment is in no way similar to trading your skill or physical labor for money.
Consider this - your wage earnings are reported on a W-9 form for tax filings, but your investment earnings are reported on various 1099 forms.
Quote:
And to get to that point, my wealth is something I likely earned via my efforts (labor) also.
Are you intentionally trying to miss the point of my post?
Quote:
The Paris Hiltons of the world are far and few between.
Whether or not the above statement is true, it has nothing to do with the discussion at hand.
FOCUS - prior to the 16th Amendment, workers could be subject to a federal income tax for revenues received for their labors, but after Pollock v Farmers' Loan and Trust business owners and property owners could not be subject to federal income taxes upon the profits derived their businesses or properties.
"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."
Yet the citation of the amendment in the original post ends at the first comma. Now why is that?
Here's the thing - the amendment allows the Congress to tax based upon incomes from all sources, and was added into the Constitution to counteract Pollock v. Farmer's Loan & Trust, which held that income derived from property was a direct tax and was subject to the parts of the Constitution that called for direct taxes to be apportioned among the states according to the populations of the various states. Note that taxes on income derived from a person's labor was not considered a direct tax and therefore could be levied and collected by the federal government. Pollock v. Farmer's Loan & Trust meant that income taxes only applied to people who worked for a living and not to people who lived off the income derived from their investments.
The 16th Amendment's purpose was not to enact an income tax, but rather to make the source of all direct taxes no longer required to be proportional to the populations of the various states. It pretty much gives Congress carte blanche to levy any tax they wanted.
Bottom line - anyone claiming that a federal tax upon wealth is unconstitutional, is either a liar or "uninformed".
Why? Because this is CD. The fewer words, the more likely a post is to penetrate drug/booze/partisanship-addled brains. I can virtually guarantee that not one in 100 got to the end of your 17 line post.
If the "16th Amendment's purpose was not to enact an income tax" why the phrase "taxes on incomes?"
Taxes were 90% under IKE. 75% or more until the late 1960's or later.
Not even a question. Any progressive tax structure is a "wealth tax"......
You'd have to be fairly ignorant of history to suggest that 30% or 45% is constitutional, but 70% isn't....especially since it was the LAW OF THE LAND for many decades.
So, not even a question. There is your answer.
For about the 10th time, the 91% rate under Ike is a canard. According to Piketty & Saez (the latter is Sen. Warrens advisor), the effective rate on the top 1% was 31% in 1960 (under the 91% nominal rate), and 24% in 2004 (with a top nominal rate of 39%).
No one paid that 91% rate due to the different structure of deductions then. In effect, it did not exist. Anyway, the topic is the wealth tax, not the income tax.
post you quoted did not have any math. It mistakenly made reference to 'depreciation,' which as far as I can tell was meant as 'appreciation.' This is what happens when you fall prey to TDS.
I am surprised at the number who voted for 'pass it and fight it out in court,' (18 of 55 voters). This approach essentially tosses rule of law in the garbage bin. It means that if you can stack the judiciary, you can get whatever result you wish. If it's a result that you like, be careful what you wish for. The other side can come back and use the same process to get a result that you don't like.
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.
