I'm not sure about the "same federal benefits" bit, but I do know that any American citizen ANYWHERE in the world is required to pay US income taxes REGARDLESS of whether or not they have ever even been in the United States of America AND that they can have their bank accounts and/or other assets seized pursuant to the registration of an American court order (which they might not even have known was going to be obtained) to pay the taxes (and interest [and penalties {and costs of collection}]) "owing" to the US government. An interesting point is that the penalties can be assessed even if the person never had to pay a dime in US taxes, but simply because the person didn't file a US income tax return that they never knew they had to file.
Strangely enough the decision in "Dred Scott" (a 7-2 decision) was quite clear as well.
The claim that (as you put it) that the US was "founded upon natural rights" is what is taught to innocent young school children.
translation: I am one of the 35%
When Roe versus Wade is overturned, it will be unambiguous and clear as day, too. I love The Trump Supreme Court. Bless its heart. I mean, God bless America, of course. Bless its heart.
Ahhh, playing the "race card".
Who would have thunk it?
Look out! There is a "white supremacist" behind you! The are all over the place, you just can't see them.
This seems like a funny way to admit being wrong without saying it. Why not explain how Congress doesn't have the Constitutional authority to pass laws that impact territories differently than the states.
I suggest that you take some remedial "Reading for Comprehension" classes as that has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with what I wrote.
Now why would I want to explain something that is non-existent?
So what do you think of Sotomayor's postulation that "if Congress has the ability to exclude citizens from safety net programs because they reside in jurisdictions that do not pay sufficient taxes, it could easily target needy residents in other states like Vermont, Wyoming, South Dakota, North Dakota, Montana and Alaska on the basis that "residents in those states pay less into the Federal Treasury than residents of other States." Given the reasoning in which this decision is being framed that would seem almost eminently fair, would it not?
wallethub.com
Apples and oranges. People in your list aren’t excluded from paying the full amount of federal taxes as everyone else who resides in the 50 states. Puerto Ricans are.So what do you think of Sotomayor's postulation that "if Congress has the ability to exclude citizens from safety net programs because they reside in jurisdictions that do not pay sufficient taxes, it could easily target needy residents in other states like Vermont, Wyoming, South Dakota, North Dakota, Montana and Alaska on the basis that "residents in those states pay less into the Federal Treasury than residents of other States." Given the reasoning in which this decision is being framed that would seem almost eminently fair, would it not?
View attachment 67387786Most & Least Federally Dependent States in 2024
Most & Least Federally Dependent States in 2024
Cool, now what position would DC and PR have in your table?So what do you think of Sotomayor's postulation that "if Congress has the ability to exclude citizens from safety net programs because they reside in jurisdictions that do not pay sufficient taxes, it could easily target needy residents in other states like Vermont, Wyoming, South Dakota, North Dakota, Montana and Alaska on the basis that "residents in those states pay less into the Federal Treasury than residents of other States." Given the reasoning in which this decision is being framed that would seem almost eminently fair, would it not?
View attachment 67387786Most & Least Federally Dependent States in 2024
Most & Least Federally Dependent States in 2024
Puerto Rico sends around $1,089.54 per person to the US federal government and receives around $1,283.65 per person back.
Unfortunately none of those links is friendly with my legacy software.
