COVID-19 RESOURCES
LIT CAMS (200 Free Tokens)ADULT TOYSVOD MOVIES

Tax the Rich?

DawnODay

DawnODay

Literotica Guru
Joined
Dec 19, 2015
Posts
3,120


Tax the rich, feed the poor
Till there are no rich no more?

- Alvin Lee, I'd Love to Change the World, (1971).
​


In other words:

“The trouble with Socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money.”


I had a recent PM exchange here that I thought apropos to share in light of the current D.C. debate on tax reform. Because I have not consulted with my correspondent before sharing, I have redacted his name.

DawnODay said:
XXXXXXXX said:
DawnODay said:
XXXXXXXX said:
But as a "leftist," your posts are making me want to hatefuck the conservativism out of you.
Click to expand...

I understand.

Such violent instincts are typical of the Left these days.

If you really are sorry, you might want to consider the fact-based reasoning of Conservatism to the pipe-dream emotions of Socialism.
Click to expand...

First of all, fuck socialism. I'm a strong proponent of capitalism. But more importantly, "fact-based reasoning" leads almost exclusively to liberal conclusions. Systemic racism exists. Taxes on the wealthy should be higher. Investing in education can actually save money overall by reducing the costs associated with social services and the criminal justice system. This shit isn't difficult. It's not about emotions beyond the extent to which it requires you to give the slightest of fucks about other people.
Click to expand...

Dear Mr. XXXXXXXX,

Thank you for your reply. Now we have some substance to discuss. I respect your opinions, except history shows you are simply mistaken that "'fact-based reasoning' leads almost exclusively to liberal conclusions."

Take, for instance, your belief that "[t]axes on the wealthy should be higher." There are two basic arguments against this. I'll start with the weaker of the two, which is fairness.

In 2014, the most recent year for which there is full data:

The top 1 percent [of taxpayers] paid a greater share of individual income taxes (39.5 percent) than the bottom 90 percent combined (29.1 percent).

The share of income earned by the top 1 percent of taxpayers rose to 20.6 percent in 2014. Their share of federal individual income taxes also rose, to 39.5 percent.

[T]he top 50 percent of all taxpayers paid 97.3 percent of all individual income taxes while the bottom 50 percent paid the remaining 2.7 percent.​

S. Greenberg, Summary of the Latest Federal Income Tax Data, 2016 Update, Tax Foundation (Feb. 1, 2017). These numbers are confirmed by CNBC, which I'm sure you admit has no right-wing bias. With the "one-percenters" paying 40% of all income taxes, and the top 50% paying almost all of income taxes, I assume you are not arguing "fairness" as a basis for why the "rich" should pay more.

Perhaps, instead, you think it is good economic policy. After all, we have a the huge national debt (nearly doubled in just the 8 years of the Obama Presidency). If the rich paid more, would that not help that?

Maybe, but given the size of the debt, any amount you could tax them would be a mere drop in the bucket. Rather, history shows the best way to fight deficits and reduce debt is to lower taxes on the very wealthy and let them invest that capital back into economic development. You should understand this. You're a "strong proponent of capitalism," after all.

Only twice since the inception of income tax in the USA have we had tax reform involving across the board tax reductions, including for the wealthy. One was under Kennedy; the other under Reagan. In each case, the resulting economic boom resulted in significant deficit reduction and, in the latter case, budget surpluses. The Kennedy tax cuts would have also led to surpluses if not for the cost of the Vietnam War (a war started by Democrats and ended by a Republican), and LBJ's failed "War on Poverty."

Thus, if your reason for wanting to increase taxes on the wealthy is economic policy, then history suggests that the better policy for the whole economy, which is what is necessary to help the poor and middle class, is to include them in a reversion to the sort of tax rates we had at the end of the Kennedy and Reagan administrations. See, generally, B. Domitrovic & L. Kudlow, John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan Proved Tax Cuts Work, Time (Sep. 29, 2016); M. Geewax, JFK's Lasting Economic Legacy: Lower Tax Rates, NPR (Nov. 14, 2013); D. Mitchell, The Historical Lessons of Lower Tax Rates, (Aug. 13, 2003).

As you can see, I am not some knee-jerk reactionary. I have facts and sound and rational reasoning behind my Conservative opinions. Do you still want "to hatefuck the conservativism [sic] out of" me?

Yours from the right,
Dawn
Click to expand...

Comments?
 
I helped create the GOP tax myth. Trump is wrong: Tax cuts don’t equal growth.

Trump's Tax Plan Has Echoes Of The Kansas Tax Cut Experiment

Sorry, but this is not sound reasoning:

Rather, history shows the best way to fight deficits and reduce debt is to lower taxes on the very wealthy and let them invest that capital back into economic development.
Click to expand...

Why yes, the "very wealthy" are just DYING to "invest that capital." They lie awake at night, in their mansions, crying themselves to sleep. If ONLY I could get a HUGE tax cut, I'd build that coal mine tomorrow!

That is MYTHICAL trickle down economics.

The "very wealthy" are "very wealthy" right now. What's stopping them from re-investing now, today?

Trickle-down economics is the greatest broken promise of our lifetime


Trickle-Down Economics: Four Reasons Why It Just Doesn't Work

The Political Failure of Trickle-Down Economics

New Data Illustrate the Failure of the Trickle-Down Experiment

Trickle-Down Economics Has Ruined the Kansas Economy
 
Majority of Americans oppose GOP tax plan

President Donald Trump wants to convince Americans that the GOP tax plan first and foremost would benefit the middle class—but a majority of Americans aren't buying it.

Six in 10 Americans agree the GOP's proposed tax cuts favor the wealthy, according to a Washington Post-ABC News poll. Just one-third of Americans polled supported the GOP's tax plan at all, while 50 percent said they opposed it.
Click to expand...

The problem with taxing the poor is ... They Don't Have Enough Money!

To stimulate Consumerism, the poor need some money to spend. There are too few Rich to pour Billions into the economy. Think about that for a nano-second and you will realize that cutting the deficit requires raising revenue and not increasing spending on nonproductive bullshit. :mad:
 
Once I saw you sight Larry "Wrong about Everything" Kudlow I couldn't stop laughing.

You're idea of history is pathetic. How do you account for the booming economy after Clinton and Obama raised taxes? You can't.

Also, why did you say you were having a discussion with someone when you didn't post their comments? Probably because you're a moron.

Allow me to continue bashing you.

The U.S. gets 31% of its GDP from taxation. The Heritage Foundation ranks the U.S. as the 17th most free country.

If taxes and socialism are evil then how can countries that get more of their GDP from taxes than the U.S. be more free? The U.K. gets 36% and they're 12th, New Zealand gets 35% and they're 3rd, and hell fucking Estonia gets 40% and they're 6th!

Why does the economy do better under socialist, godless, market-hating Democrats than it does the Tehadists? Hell, click that link your Orange Nazi hero Trump said it.

If I can I suggest you actually read something by someone who isn't a moronic fake-economist hack like Paul Krugman or Joseph Stiglitz.
 
Last edited:
I love how the Mercers and Kochs have their little brainwashed army to do their bidding.

THEY'LL get their tax cuts, while the brainwashed defend them.

Speaking of promises (How's that Wall Coming? And the beautiful, better, cheaper healthcare? And the coal jobs and infrastructure? Where's any of it?)

The Rethuglicans convince braindead puppets such as yourself to support their tax cuts for the rich with the promise that it will trickle down to you, and you fall for it every time.

Newsflash: unemployment is the lowest its been in 14 years, thanks to Obama. All that "spending" ruined the economy, did it?

Btw, the Rs only bitch about the deficit when Ds want to "spend" gov't to help people, with, I don't know, healthcare.

They DON'T bitch about it when that money is SPENT on giving the rich what they want: more money and control. Then they don't care.


JayCuck said:
DawnODay....you're wrong. The person you were corresponding with is correct. It's actually an embarrassing exchange. "Fact-Based Reasoning"...lol. My ass.

For the sake of argument. Say you're all right. What country has taxed themselves to prosperity? Here's a tip...it doesn't really matter what taxes the government collects, if it won't control it's spending. And that's the crux of the issue.

Dumbass leftists want high taxes for two reasons.

1. Control. It's always about control with the left. They don't give a fuck about people. They're perfectly happy when people are miserable, so long as they're receiving a government check. In short, they use government spending to buy votes, while always promising they'll improve peoples lives. There's always another promise....kinda like Venezuela.

2. Spending. Government spending is ALWAYS the solution. Simply put, everything good flows from government. Everything bad, comes from the private sector. It's mindless. Stupid. And unquestioned on the left.

Government is the religion of the left. And they're extremists.


P.S. LOL. It looks like you can kiss the SALT tax deduction good-bye. Enjoy your high-tax states.
Click to expand...
 
DawnODay said:


Tax the rich, feed the poor
Till there are no rich no more?

- Alvin Lee, I'd Love to Change the World, (1971).
​


In other words:

“The trouble with Socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money.”


I had a recent PM exchange here that I thought apropos to share in light of the current D.C. debate on tax reform. Because I have not consulted with my correspondent before sharing, I have redacted his name.



Comments?
Click to expand...

I had an urge to lick you the last time we talked.


Still do.
 
‘Voodoo economics’ makes a comeback in Republican tax plan enriching the rich

Republicans in Congress recently released more details of their tax plan, which they say would boost economic growth and lower the burden on middle-income households. They hope to pass a bill into law by Christmas.

The reality is that the proposed cuts, which carry a price tag as high as US$1.5 trillion over a decade, would offer the greatest relief to corporations and the wealthy.

Simply put, the plan reflects the thinking of supply-side economics, whereby tax cuts to top earners are said to result in more business investment. Lowering taxes for the wealthy and companies, the theory goes, fuels a benevolent cycle that ultimately leads to higher wages and a stronger economy.

I have worked on a wide range of economic policy topics, including taxes, for two decades now. Evidence from past changes suggests that the tax plan would do little to increase business investment or help workers. Instead, it would increase the gap between rich and poor, while leaving massive budget deficits in its wake
Click to expand...

The article has graphs showing the effects of past tax policy on the investment. They contradict all the Rethuglican points and show they real effeccts of tax cuts for the wealthy.

And the truth shall make you free, to vote Bernie!:)
 
I read of strong signs that no tax plan will arrive before the winter holidays, proving that the current Tromp-Gup regime is unable to govern. But I digress.

Circa 1972 IIRC, prominent dope-defense lawyer Tony Serra ran for mayor of San Francisco on the Platypus Party ticket. (I think it was Joe Alioto who beat him.) His program: Eliminate all city-county taxes and fees. Take over Alcatraz Island and transform it into a pricey sex-drugs-music-games-whatever casino resort, an unbridled Vegas On The Bay.

The basic idea: gov't can run profitable enterprises instead of collecting taxes. Yes, that's social ownership of SOME means of production and distraction, but it ain't much in the way of socialism. Of course a fascist (corporate-owned) state takes the opposite tack, privatizing everything profitable and leaving taxpayers to cover all losses. Welcome to Amerikkka.
 
JackLuis said:
‘Voodoo economics’ makes a comeback in Republican tax plan enriching the rich



The article has graphs showing the effects of past tax policy on the investment. They contradict all the Rethuglican points and show they real effeccts of tax cuts for the wealthy.

And the truth shall make you free, to vote Bernie!:)
Click to expand...

The article is 'voodoo' type, but doesn't even qualify for 'voodoo'.

The graph used to compare historical cuts and investment levels is crude, and deeply flawed in its assumption. The reasons for the dips and increases are for entirely different reasons, and, in some ways, prove the opposite... .

The estate tax, for people with very expensive houses, is just too high.

As for the rest, lowering the tax rate on the middle class, while I found it a small decrease, but still, is a good sign.

What people should be checking though, are those child benefits and the likes, those removed deductibles (you can no longer claim an amount per person) and health insurance coverage and premiums.

Those are what will tip it off for that middle class. The class that makes or breaks the country's economy.
 
Taxes are only legitimate for one purpose, and that is for a recognized government need, such as defense. There is absolutely no justifiable reason to use taxation as a means of social manipulation nor reorganization... NONE. The Income Tax was originally ruled Constitutionally illegal taxation by the Supreme Court, which is why it had to be made an amendment to the Constitution, as a form of backdoor legalization. We need to do the same thing with the XVI Amendment that we did with prohibition, both are social engineering legislation, and should not be continued.

In ancient times, the Catholic church largely served the purpose of government, and the imposition on the people was a tithe, which is literally ten percent. And the church grew rich upon it. There is absolutely no ethical reason for the total taxation burden (Federal, state, local, sales tax, etc) on ANYONE to exceed that same ten percent.
 
Last edited:
coachdb18 said:
Taxes are only legitimate for one purpose, and that is for a recognized government need, such as defense. There is absolutely no justifiable reason to use taxation as a means of social manipulation nor reorganization... NONE. The Income Tax was originally ruled Constitutionally illegal taxation by the Supreme Court, which is why it had to be made an amendment to the Constitution, as a form of backdoor legalization. We need to do the same thing with the XVI Amendment that we did with prohibition, both are social engineering legislation, and should not be continued.

In ancient times, the Catholic church largely served the purpose of government, and the imposition on the people was a tithe, which is literally ten percent. And the church grew rich upon it. There is absolutely no ethical reason for the total taxation burden (Federal, state, local, sales tax, etc) on ANYONE to exceed that same ten percent.
Click to expand...

Hear! Hear!

The reason the current federal government could not operate on a 10% flat tax, as you suggest, is that it does a lot of things not authorized by Art. I, s. 8 of the Constitution. Major, expensive, examples of this include education, insurance regulation, and, of course, health care. Under the Tenth Amendment, anything not specifically enumerated in the Constitution for the federal government is reserved for State action.

If the federal government would stick to its legitimate areas of authority, federal taxes would be low enough that no one would be that concerned about them, as was the case until about 80 years ago when the Federal Government first started assuming so many unconstitutional powers.
 
How many sewer systems did the Catholics install? How many roads did they build? How many fires have they put out?
 
PrincepsCyberius said:
Hear! Hear!

The reason the current federal government could not operate on a 10% flat tax, as you suggest, is that it does a lot of things not authorized by Art. I, s. 8 of the Constitution. Major, expensive, examples of this include education, insurance regulation, and, of course, health care. Under the Tenth Amendment, anything not specifically enumerated in the Constitution for the federal government is reserved for State action.

If the federal government would stick to its legitimate areas of authority, federal taxes would be low enough that no one would be that concerned about them, as was the case until about 80 years ago when the Federal Government first started assuming so many unconstitutional powers.
Click to expand...

The only departments enumerated under the Constitution are State, Defense, and Commerce... that's it. FDR went hog wild with expanding the government, and kept America in the Great Depression YEARS after the rest of the world, and ended up NEEDING WWII and the wartime production, his alphabet government was a dismal failure. Socialist Security is the Ponzi scheme we still have as a first foray into bigger and more intrusive government. Now, we have ObamaCare and socialist medicine, and it too is a colossal cluster-fuck. We need to have checks and balances on spending, and to do that we need to repeal the income tax, close the doors to the IRS, and let the state legislatures decide what funding they will approve and send to run the Federal government. Let Congress make all the laws it wants to, but also make them rely on requests for funding them, with the distinct possibility of getting rejected for big government spending.
 
About the only thing I'd trust Trump to accomplish is repairing infrastructure.

How about it, hm? Give up on the complicated stuff like healthcare and taxation, and just do the infrastructure bill.
 
phrodeau said:
About the only thing I'd trust Trump to accomplish is repairing infrastructure.

How about it, hm? Give up on the complicated stuff like healthcare and taxation, and just do the infrastructure bill.
Click to expand...

Sure. How many neat bridges and roads and stuff do you think we could get before the vendors realized that he wasn't paying their bills?
 
coachdb18 said:
Taxes are only legitimate for one purpose, and that is for a recognized government need, such as defense. There is absolutely no justifiable reason to use taxation as a means of social manipulation nor reorganization... NONE.
Click to expand...
That's theology, not reality. The Constitution says you're wrong.

USC Art.1 Sec.8: "The Congress shall have power to Lay and Collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States."

"Provide for... the general Welfare" grants lots of leeway. The elected authority may decide that certain taxation policies will improve the nation. That's what we elect them for, to make those decisions. If you don't like their decisions, elect someone else.

This is pretty basic stuff. Have you ever passed a Civics class?
 
phrodeau said:
How many sewer systems did the Catholics install? How many roads did they build? How many fires have they put out?
Click to expand...

Hey! Be kind to us Catholics!

After all, Pontiff (pontifex) originally meant "bridge builder." So maybe we did do civil engineering!

(Okay... I know.... It didn't mean that by the time it was used for the Pope and other bishops.)

:D

On the other hand, I have to say I agree that Federal taxes in the USA have gotten too high, in large part because the federal government has gotten bloated and too powerful. Isn't that ultimately the point here. All political philosophy aside, don't we all agree that taxes are too high, especially on the Middle Class?

 
EmpressJosephine said:
On the other hand, I have to say I agree that Federal taxes in the USA have gotten too high, in large part because the federal government has gotten bloated and too powerful. Isn't that ultimately the point here. All political philosophy aside, don't we all agree that taxes are too high, especially on the Middle Class?
Click to expand...
USA has lower taxes than most industrial nations. The Euro social democracies tend to much higher taxes, but the taxpayers actually receive benefits (education, healthcare, housing, etc) rather than seeing their money siphoned-off for corporate welfare and the military-industrial complex.

Also, more prosperous areas tend to have higher taxes. Look for low-tax areas. Then decide if you would REALLY want to raise your family there.

As for bloat: USA is the third most populous nation on Earth with 1/3 of a billion people. Gov't is lubrication; competing interests are greased so as not to burn up the national engine. More people, more competing interests, require more lubrication. And yes, we need regular oil changes.

"Oh, just strip all that away!" minimalists may say. Yeah sure. Heed this rule: Power abhors a vacuum. Strip away gov't and you'll get more gangs, warlords, fiefdoms... which is what many minimalists WANT, believing THEY will be the warlords. And they'll tax you too.
 
Hypoxia said:
USA has lower taxes than most industrial nations. The Euro social democracies tend to much higher taxes, but the taxpayers actually receive benefits (education, healthcare, housing, etc) rather than seeing their money siphoned-off for corporate welfare and the military-industrial complex.

Also, more prosperous areas tend to have higher taxes. Look for low-tax areas. Then decide if you would REALLY want to raise your family there.

As for bloat: USA is the third most populous nation on Earth with 1/3 of a billion people. Gov't is lubrication; competing interests are greased so as not to burn up the national engine. More people, more competing interests, require more lubrication. And yes, we need regular oil changes.

"Oh, just strip all that away!" minimalists may say. Yeah sure. Heed this rule: Power abhors a vacuum. Strip away gov't and you'll get more gangs, warlords, fiefdoms... which is what many minimalists WANT, believing THEY will be the warlords. And they'll tax you too.
Click to expand...


You misunderstand.

I'm not advocating minimal government. I'm advocating a smaller federal government. In the USA, the idea was that most services that act as societal "lubrication" would come from state and local governments. That way there is more local control, and better response to local conditions, rather than the cookie-cutter, one-size-fits-all regulatory schemes of the federal government. I'm an educator, and federal mandates regarding education are generally useless at best, and often counterproductive because they don't apply to the situation on the ground locally.

I hear the same thing from friends in health care. For example, the current "opioid epidemic" can be traced back to well-intentioned federal mandates from 2012. It essentially limited the pain relievers doctors could prescribe, but did not take into account how this would affect current patients using opioids. As a result, they basically had their prescriptions eliminated or reduced to ineffectual levels in a cold-turkey fashion, so they turned to the street for relief.

What sounds good inside the Beltway often works poorly in the real world. That's why keeping the regulatory authority as local as possible is preferable. That also addresses your concern about amounts of taxation. If the proper balance were restored between state and federal authority, federal taxes would go down, but local (including state) taxes would rise. The difference: the money kept local would be better spent.


 
EmpressJosephine said:
I'm not advocating minimal government. I'm advocating a smaller federal government. In the USA, the idea was that most services that act as societal "lubrication" would come from state and local governments.
Click to expand...
That breaks down when state and local govt's are run by corrupt cliques who fuck-over their non-friends, entrenched often by gerrymandering and disenfranchisement. Cf. federal civil rights laws.

How to regain a federal-state-local balance? Free and fair elections are a good start. USA doesn't rank well internationally; some states rank worse than sub-Saharan kleptocracies. (Looking at you, South Carolina.) Kill the fictions of "a corporation is a person" and "money is speech". And REGULATE corporations, as Adam Smith urged, as was the early American practice.

Reagan said gov't was the problem, not the solution. Then he and his ilk (including Wee Willie Clinton) started killing regulations against centralized power and commerce. Result: money and power concentrate on the coasts. Formerly vibrant "fly-over zone" economies are devastated. Locals with no life options are left with no recreations but sex and drugs.

I hear the same thing from friends in health care. For example, the current "opioid epidemic" can be traced back to well-intentioned federal mandates from 2012.
Click to expand...
The crisis started two decades ago. Looking at this chart (click for the Wikipedia article), heroin and other opioid overdoses surged from 2009, which likely triggered the mandates.



Why surge then? Let's see, what else happened? Oh yeah, economic collapse caused by Dubya's gang forsaking regulation. Suddenly, many jobs gone, many futures blown to shit. We see the results.
 
House GOP’s wildly unpopular tax bill defines nation’s wealthiest 1 percent as ‘middle class’

That's rich! Republicans suddenly believe that one percenters are barely struggling to be in the middle class, party officials revealed.

On Thursday, House Republicans issued a fact sheet about their new tax cut plan that referred to Americans earning $450,000 a year as “low- and middle-income” — even though that income level would put those taxpayers in the top 0.05% of all individual Americans.
Click to expand...

Republicans are also concerned. 63 percent of Republicans believe that deficit reduction is more important than tax cuts for corporations, and 75 percent said it was more important than tax cuts for the wealthy, according to a survey.
Click to expand...

Talk about Fake News!:eek:
 
That's rich! Republicans suddenly believe that one percenters are barely struggling to be in the middle class, party officials revealed.

On Thursday, House Republicans issued a fact sheet about their new tax cut plan that referred to Americans earning $450,000 a year as “low- and middle-income” — even though that income level would put those taxpayers in the top 0.05% of all individual Americans.
Click to expand...


That just means that 95% of us will qualify for Welfare and other federal programs. Republicans should love that.
 
Hypoxia said:
That's theology, not reality. The Constitution says you're wrong.

USC Art.1 Sec.8: "The Congress shall have power to Lay and Collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States."

"Provide for... the general Welfare" grants lots of leeway. The elected authority may decide that certain taxation policies will improve the nation. That's what we elect them for, to make those decisions. If you don't like their decisions, elect someone else.

This is pretty basic stuff. Have you ever passed a Civics class?
Click to expand...

Having passed that 'basic civics class', I'm already aware that the only departments authorized by the Constitution are Defense, Commerce, and State. That's it, the remainder are extraconstitutional, and reserved to the states, and the people.

There is no reason for ALL taxes TOTAL (federal, state, local, sales tax, etc) to ever exceed 10% total for any citizen. Taxes are for NEEDS, not for WANTS. You can pay for your own wants yourself, not at the barrel of a government gun. Redistributing the wealth is NOT an ethical reason for a government of ANY kind.

1. Repeal the XVI Amendment (was unconstitutional to start with)
2. Close the IRS
3. Fund the Federal government by funding approvals from state legislatures
 
Last edited:
Lots more theology.
coachdb18 said:
Having passed that 'basic civics class', I'm already aware that the only departments authorized by the Constitution are Defense, Commerce, and State. That's it, the remainder are extraconstitutional, and reserved to the states, and the people.
Click to expand...
You flunked that Civics course. No departments are named in the Constitution. The President commands the Army, Navy, and state Militias when they're called up. Congress has power to provide for defence, regulate foreign and interstate commerce, and provide a postal system. All the rest of gov't frippery results from legislation and rulings.

The Constitution is just the tortilla; it ain't the whole enchilada.

There is no reason for ALL taxes TOTAL (federal, state, local, sales tax, etc) to ever exceed 10% total for any citizen. Taxes are for NEEDS, not for WANTS. You can pay for your own wants yourself, not at the barrel of a government gun. Redistributing the wealth is NOT an ethical reason for a government of ANY kind.
Click to expand...
More theology. Reality works otherwise.

1. Repeal the XVI Amendment (was unconstitutional to start with)
2. Close the IRS
3. Fund the Federal government by funding approvals from state legislatures
Click to expand...
See, you DID flunk Civics!

1. Any amendment, once adopted, is constitutional. Duh. Art.V: "Amendments.. shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution..."

2. There've been legal and constitutional challenges to the IRS for a century. All failed. Have fun trying.

3. That specifically violates Art.I Sec.8 Cl.1: "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises..." and Art.I Sec.7 Cl.1: "All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives..." The states have no constitutional role.
 
Last edited:
JayCuck said:
1. Note
Click to expand...

Do you have proof of any of this? I don't think so and you clearly didn't read my post where I destroyed the standard Teahadist anti-tax jihad. Why don't you go read my post and come back with any proof of your bullshit claims.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

M
Americans spend $104 billion on tax preparation services
2 3 4
Replies
82
Views
345
MajorRewrite
M
BabyBoomer50s
Save Prop 13, Stop Voter Suppression in California
Replies
15
Views
142
BabyBoomer50s
BabyBoomer50s
SugarDaddy1
Joe Biden’s signature achievement is his list of broken promises
Replies
1
Views
15
KeithD
KeithD
butters
popular, 71-year-old real estate developer found guilty of $1.4B fraud
Replies
1
Views
69
Bn2f
Bn2f
V
DemetiaJoe will impse wage and price controls
Replies
13
Views
54
ll74
ll74
Back
Top