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.
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.
Ah, this is the whole idea of "lying conservatives" and the billions they spend on propaganda.
They have convinced you and many others that we shouldn't pay the bills for what we do. Instead, we should add it to debt and deficit that you and I and every (mostly NOT well off) Americans have to pay.
And you consider that fair?
You have bought into an unrealistic world view. I saw it today at my condo meeting (I'm on the board). We pay the bills. But some individual unit owners wanted us to approve 12K of work under their units. We don't have the have the money..and there are 12 unit owners...so if that owner gets their 12K, we need to come up with 144K.
Note - these are relatively wealthy people (her hubby is a doc) and they don't understand simple math or budgets.
How do you propose getting a TRILLION plus dollars more per year? Give us a realistic answer and do the math so it work out. Don't pull the "cut taxes more and the money will be automatic" since Trump already cut taxes and the deficit is soaring due to it.
So....either.
1. You believe in MUCH more taxation
or
2. You believe we should kick the cans to our children and grandchildren to pay OUR bills.
I say go ahead with a wealth tax... Time to teach the super wealthy a lesson... They don't pay income taxes because their income stream is different... Yet they go on TV and demand increase income tax rates....
What happens when the 50m cap isn't pulling in enough revenue? Start taxing personal wealth above 10 million? Once you start grabbing that at 2% per year, and revenue drops further, we may need to start taxing personal wealth over 1 million. Own a home and have a few hundred thousand in a 401k (solidly middle, or even lower middle class retiree)? Your wealthy! Pay up...
Obamacare was Unconstitutional also yet a supposedly "conservative" judge refused to do the job he was sworn to do which is to follow the law, but instead ruled on his feelings saying he didn't want to be the one to strike it down. Most gun laws on the Fed, State, and Local level are infringements, and therefore Unconstitutional. It happens all the time.
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.
Travis, if you have to resort to the phrase "drug/booze/partisanship-addled brains", I question whether you are trying to have an intelligent discussion.
Quote:
If the "16th Amendment's purpose was not to enact an income tax" why the phrase "taxes on incomes?"
Because income can be derived from multiple sources, not just income from labor. As I've already pointed out twice, in 1895 the SCOTUS ruled in Pollock v Farmers' Loan and Trust Co. that taxes on income derived from property was a form of direct tax, limited to a proportional levying per the US census. The 16th Amendment made taxes on income "from whatever sources derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration" constitutionally valid.
You continue to insist on truncating the text of the Amendment in order to change it's interpretation. It doesn't work that way.
Explain what income is derived from vacant property.
I had an old girl-friend who inherited a 100 acre farm from her grandfather. At the time, the early 1990s, it was valued at $200/acre.
Today, other people say it's valued at $28,600/acre.
So, you're insanely jealous because her net worth -- at least related to the property -- has increased from $20,000 to $2.86 Million in 25 years, because other people say the property is worth more, and you want to tax her.
She doesn't derive any income from that property. It's just sitting there. A couple of developers have approached her over the years, but she doesn't want to part with it until she retires (which is a good retirement strategy for her).
When she does sell it, she'll pay Capital Gains taxes on it, so it's not like she's getting away Scott free.
Even if it would be developed, and she derived rents from it, she would pays taxes on the rent income derived from it, so again, it's not like she'd be getting away Scott free.
People like Bill Gates who own several $Billion in stocks, because other people say the stocks are worth that much, only derive income when he sells the stocks, and then he pays Capital Gains taxes on the sale.
Mircea, your response to me was quite emotional but it did lead me to question whether I was wrong in my posting. I had been responding to the discussion about income taxes, but your response did bring me to back to the fact that the proposal by Senator Warren is about federal taxes on property and not about federal taxes on income.
After reviewing my own position, I did realize that a property tax is considered an ad valorem tax, which is not explicitly mentioned in the US Constitution by name ("Congress shall have the power...to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts, and Excises..."). However, I did discover that several federal property taxes were enacted by Congress, in 1798 to help pay for the anticipated war with France (which never materialized), and in 1813 to pay for the actual war with Great Britain. Seeing as that the people who passed these laws were both Hamiltonian Federalists and Jeffersonian Republicans, I put forth that the people who had first hand knowledge of the limits of the federal government as crafted by the Founding Fathers would positively state that the federal government does indeed have the power to tax property (or, in the current discussion, wealth).
So I thank you, Mircea. You didn't bring any facts or logic to the discussion, but you did prompt me to re-examine my own position on the subject.
Travis, if you have to resort to the phrase "drug/booze/partisanship-addled brains", I question whether you are trying to have an intelligent discussion.
Because income can be derived from multiple sources, not just income from labor. As I've already pointed out twice, in 1895 the SCOTUS ruled in Pollock v Farmers' Loan and Trust Co. that taxes on income derived from property was a form of direct tax, limited to a proportional levying per the US census. The 16th Amendment made taxes on income "from whatever sources derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration" constitutionally valid.
You continue to insist on truncating the text of the Amendment in order to change it's interpretation. It doesn't work that way.
You continue to falsely attribute an underhanded motive to me after I explained why there was no such motive. I would assume that someone like you would have the capacity and acuity to look the amendment up and read the whole thing if desired. Sorry, my bad for making that assumption.
I've been on CD long enough to see that the longer the post, the less likely it is to be read. Why write something no one is going to read? That is why I truncated the line.
And just in case you don't know, the 4 dots at the end of the quote are the 'ellipsis,' which is supposed to let the reader know that 'this is a truncated quote.' ( The term ellipsis comes from the Greek word meaning “omission,” ). So you see there was no underhanded, nefarious, sub rosa plot here.
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.
