- Joined
- Feb 16, 2013
- Messages
- 5,768
- Reaction score
- 2,932
- Location
- California
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Liberal
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.IMO no matter where a US citizen lives, they should pay the same federal taxes and get the same federal benefits.
Strangely enough the decision in "Dred Scott" (a 7-2 decision) was quite clear as well.My bet is the law is clear even if it is unfair. Are the courts there to insure fairness? One would hope so but an 8-1 decision usually means the law is unambiguous.
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.Exactly but I think that decision gets used a bit too much when folks disagree with a recent ruling. I read a history of the way the territories were set up originally, forgot what book it was but essentially the laws were created to make them second class citizens on purpose for a variety of reasons including extreme racial and cultural bias against all of them. In many ways it was similar to the way we treated the Native Americans. So much for our vaunted claim to be founded upon natural rights.
The claim that (as you put it) that the US was "founded upon natural rights" is what is taught to innocent young school children.
That being said, the US has come a long way from its origin (where the government was in the hands of white males [and the Executive Branch, the Judicial Branch, and the Senate were in the hands of rich, white males]) to its current situation where the government is (at least theoretically) in the hands of the vast majority of the populace REGARDLESS of whether they were "rich", "White", or "male".
translation: I am one of the 35%Bovine scat.
Ahhh, playing the "race card".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.My bet is the law is clear even if it is unfair. Are the courts there to insure fairness? One would hope so but an 8-1 decision usually means the law is unambiguous.
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.And being in the majority does not always mean being correct any more than being in the minority always means being wrong.
I suggest that you take some remedial "Reading for Comprehension" classes as that has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with what I wrote.This seems like a funny way to admit being wrong without saying it.
Now why would I want to explain something that is non-existent?Why not explain how Congress doesn't have the Constitutional authority to pass laws that impact territories differently than the states.
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?In general, I agree. The argument that 8 of the justices agreed with was since residents of Puerto Rico aren’t subject to the same taxes as residents of the 50 states, they can’t expect to receive the same level of benefits. That being the case, I don’t think this ruling creates two classes of citizens.
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 2024wallethub.com
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 2024wallethub.com
Puerto Rico sends around $1,089.54 per person to the US federal government and receives around $1,283.65 per person back.Cool, now what position would DC and PR have in your table?
Your numbers are not supported:Puerto Rico sends around $1,089.54 per person to the US federal government and receives around $1,283.65 per person back.
The District of Columbia sends around $381,045.85 per person to the US federal government and receives around $50,517.44 per person back.
How SPECIFICALLY those numbers fit on the dependency scale of the article I have no idea but if one were looking to purchase either "Puerto Rico" or "DC" and the price was the same for each of them, one wouldn't have much difficulty in figuring out which of them was the better buy.
However, the two do have one factor in common and that is the likelihood of election two Democratic Senators and, for that reason, there is no likelihood that a single Republican in Congress would vote in favour of granting them statehood.
Unfortunately none of those links is friendly with my legacy software.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?