I would say that a progressive taxation violates the 14th Amendment. Having progressive tax rates is hardly "Equal protection."
Why should the Government be in the business of promoting marriage, home ownership or investment? Why not have a flat tax on business, capital gains and income, say 33-1/3%, 10% to the states and 23% to the Fed?
I would say that a progressive taxation violates the 14th Amendment. Having progressive tax rates is hardly "Equal protection."
What is your point? Taxes can't be fair to anyone by its very nature.
... are delimited by the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.
The interpretation of those "limits" is defined by the Judiciary (that is the various courts and the Supreme Court).
There is no variation in the above documents, whereas there are Great Variations in terms of their interpretation. Which are more or less large depending upon the prevailing sentiment.
In fact, some think interpretation (of the Constitution) is historical in nature and thus passes in waves; changing every thirty of forty years and largely depending upon the nature of the Supreme Court. That is, whether the laws politicians pass by nature are consistent with - or not - the Constitution.
So far, so good - no great evil has been done. But evil is in the eye of the beholder.
And anyone with an "eye" for Social Democracy will say that the US is one of the most inequitable and unfair nations on earth.
Whyzzat?
Generally because the fruit of one's labor, revenue, are taxed and returned as "government services" is not sufficiently equitable. Meaning what? Meaning that they are not fair and impartial. (More than half of discretionary Federal Budget goes to just the DoD!)
Beyond this general explanation, we delve into the nature of work, how it is compensated and whether that compensation has especially favored one group (workers) over another (producer-owners). How is that measured? In terms of after-tax revenues ...
I would say that taxes can indeed be fair.
That does not mean that all taxes ARE fair, but in general taxes designed properly can be quite fair.
As a taxpayer, I consider the taxes on gasoline and certain other things to be a very fair way of building and maintaining road.
As presently structured, what we call the income tax is very unfair, and our present tax code with all the accountant-created loopholes is very unfair.
i took his post as direct taxes are not fair because they are a tax of force , indirect taxes are fair because they are not compulsory.
I understand the difference between the 2 as mentioned in USC, and think the distinction is fair enough.
If there is going to be a government, taxes are necessary IMO. I think how the taxes are spent is at least as important as how the taxes are collected.
... are delimited by the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.
The interpretation of those "limits" is defined by the Judiciary (that is the various courts and the Supreme Court).
There is no variation in the above documents, whereas there are Great Variations in terms of their interpretation. Which are more or less large depending upon the prevailing sentiment.
In fact, some think interpretation (of the Constitution) is historical in nature and thus passes in waves; changing every thirty of forty years and largely depending upon the nature of the Supreme Court. That is, whether the laws politicians pass by nature are consistent with - or not - the Constitution.
So far, so good - no great evil has been done. But evil is in the eye of the beholder.
And anyone with an "eye" for Social Democracy will say that the US is one of the most inequitable and unfair nations on earth.
Whyzzat?
Generally because the fruit of one's labor, revenue, are taxed and returned as "government services" is not sufficiently equitable. Meaning what? Meaning that they are not fair and impartial. (More than half of discretionary Federal Budget goes to just the DoD!)
Beyond this general explanation, we delve into the nature of work, how it is compensated and whether that compensation has especially favored one group (workers) over another (producer-owners). How is that measured? In terms of after-tax revenues ...
The Constituiton is written in plain English, so its interpretation is as set in stone as it was the day it was ratified.
So the first thing you do is try and limit the pot of funding we debate about. Sorry, not going to let you go there. Most of the people didn't ask for money to be discretionary or non-discretionary. But the smart people know that non-discretionary is where liberals get all their power. That's why they like to ignore it, as untouchable.
" The Proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains !! "
VYSA VLAST' NARODU !!
The Constituiton is written in plain English, so its interpretation is as set in stone as it was the day it was ratified.
Yes, and so?
What do you see as a "definitive solution". Come on, but you thinking-cap on!
__________
Quite right! And it reflects a mentality of that epoch as well. Stop harping about the Constitution!
It's a good foundation but it is outdated and needs some serious revisions to bring America up to a status as a Social Democracy of and by the people - and not a bunch of rich plutocrats ... !
Quite right! And it reflects a mentality of that epoch as well. Stop harping about the Constitution!
It's a good foundation but it is outdated and needs some serious revisions to bring America up to a status as a Social Democracy of and by the people - and not a bunch of rich plutocrats ... !
Whats outdatded is the pro-totalitarian Govt forced social justice clap trap youv'e been prattling on about.
The US Constitution ( you live in FRANCE ) is a revolutionary document filled with principles that are timeless and principles that tend to intimidate people who are too weak and delicate to exist without total Govt influence in their lives.
Its evolutionary as far as its limits on Govt go and if it could just be changed based on the whims of those who either misunderstand it and or who seek to undermine it it wouldn't be a Constiution anymore.
Just a piece of wortthless paper.
One things for sure, the framers sure saw you and people like you coming. People that are compelled by desructive emotional arguments. People that are petty enough and foolish enough to allow themselves to be influenced by envy.
Oh, cut the pathetic emotional blather! This is a debate forum!!!!!
Yes, the Constitution is a great document, but it is dated. (More than two and a quarter centuries old!)
It is NOT the bible. It is NOT cast in concrete.
Furthermore, the Bill of Rights was one "revision" of the text to define further of what our freedoms actually consists. And some people (like me) think it needs yet another one.
One that revises:
*National Taxation and without a Flat-tax Rate, but one that is uniformly Progressive, and with a very high upper limit. The 30% upper-limit presently is "gift" to those would like the US to revert to the 18th century when Wealth was owned by a select few.
*The manner in which people vote without the antiquated "Electoral College" but directly - One Person, One Vote and all votes tallied to determine clearly the winner. The primary vote subventioned by the Federal government with a clear limit on "election donations" (say $10K per registered voter).
I can think of a few others, but the latter above would help enormously for "Truly Free Democracy" and not one owned by a plutocracy of the rich ...
________________________
And what do you mean "our rights " ?? YOU LIVE IN FRANCE.
Where I live is nobody's business but mine. I sent my ballot vote off this week to the states.
I have as much right to discuss politics in America as you do! And I likely have more good sense than you, because democracy has come a long way since 1786. It was WW2 that gave Europe the opportunity to redefine it in Progressive Terms and call it Social Democracy.
Progressive political thinking had a brief life in the first half of the 20th century with Teddy Roosevelt who created the Progressive Party to support his bid for the presidential election of 2013. He lost that vote - and what should have become the Democrat Party was lost in history as well.
What remains is the Congressional Progressive Caucus in the HofR, with their Progressive Promise.
But, you are not to worry - the CPC has only a minority representation in Congress. And only one member from the Senate - a guy by the name of Bernie Sanders.
Which should show all of us how very far we have to go towards reinventing America ...
____________________________
Where you live is absolutey relevent considering that you would be insulated from the consequences of your short sighted and destructive policy suggestions.
You have no " skin in the game " so to speak and you have idea what your'e talking about in the first place.
Its like people like you are physiologically limited to superficial contemplation. Like you couldn't if your life depended on it think through to the ultimate consequneces of the crap you preach.
Thankfully our Framers knew there would be like you and wrote a very difficult ammendment process into the Constituion.
And anyone with an "eye" for Social Democracy will say that the US is one of the most inequitable and unfair nations on earth.
Whyzzat?
Pure, unadulterated blather.
I'm done with you ...
_____________
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?