I envy no person nor would I trade places with any person.
The purpose of the government is in fact to even things out.
After all the document states WE THE PEOPLE, not if you're rich never mind.
We the people pay into the government what we can.
Or is this document wrong?eace
Here's a history lesson for ya Turtle,
In the 1700's Some King in England decided to have some colonist pay an unfair tax while the Enlish landowners and military got a pass.
The Colonist didn't like that idea they wanted a square deal .
Sound familar, think American Revolutionary War.
Unfair tax was unfair then it still is today.eace
that is an excellent point. The very start of the US Constitution tells us why the document was written in giving us the structure and powers of government. Among the purposes is
*** to from a more perfect union
*** to establish justice
*** to insure domestic tranquility
*** to promote the general welfare
As much as right wingers loathe some of those objectives and the programs necessary to achieve them, its right there at the very beginning of the Constitution telling the nation and the world what the governments purpose is.
I envy no person nor would I trade places with any person.
The purpose of the government is in fact to even things out.
After all the document states WE THE PEOPLE, not if you're rich never mind.
We the people pay into the government what we can.
Or is this document wrong?eace
even a 5 year old can read that as not evening things out.
| Moderator's Warning: |
even a 5 year old can read that as not evening things out.
So you don't approve of the Constitution. Not exactly a shock Turtle - not exactly a shock.
Maybe I would have made you happy if I quoted either the Second or Tenth Amendment? You see my friend, my copy of the Constitution has other stuff in it besides those two.eace
wow that is perhaps the most dishonest reading of my post one could make
The constitution was not designed to even things out. I suspect I know a bit more about the constitution than most people on this board
The Constitution clearly talks about domestic tranquility and promoting the general welfare. While I have never thought of it as evening things out, I think a reasonable person can make a reasonable case for using that phrase within the context of trying to achieve both goals.
I personally believe that government cannot achieve the lofty goal of evening things out. However, I do not think it is unreasonable to associate such a goal with preserving domestic tranquility and promoting the general welfare if one has in mind the terrible things that can happen when the disparity between social and economic classes gets out of hand.
ah the old appease the losers with the money of the rich or the losers will riot? sorry, the Constitution was never designed to transfer wealth. Indeed many leftwing critics of the constitution rant that it was designed to preserve class inequality
establish justice
preserve domestic tranquility
promote the general welfare
The guys who wrote that thing strongly disagree with you.
So you now pretend to speak for people who didn't want anyone but male landowners voting?
none of that suggests income redistribution.
Actually, they spoke for themselves stating quite clearly that the document was written to establish justice, preserve domestic tranquility, and promote the general welfare among other things.
every case of someone filing income tax returns is different. Some folks can come up with lots of deductions. Some folks have trouble coming up with anything but their own personal deduction which is rather small.
As such, it makes no sense and does not give an accurate picture to do anything but say anything but this is the official rate without deductions since individual variances would be so wide as to distort the true picture of what is happening to some taxpayers.
establish justice
preserve domestic tranquility
promote the general welfare
The guys who wrote that thing strongly disagree with you.
what a fascinating claim. perhaps you can link the legislation they wrote and supported which utilized the federal government to redistribute wealth, most especially though a tax on inheritances?
With Thomas Jefferson taking the lead in the Virginia legislature in 1777, every Revolutionary state government abolished the laws of primogeniture and entail that had served to perpetuate the concentration of inherited property. Jefferson cited Adam Smith, the hero of free market capitalists everywhere, as the source of his conviction that (as Smith wrote, and Jefferson closely echoed in his own words), "A power to dispose of estates for ever is manifestly absurd. The earth and the fulness of it belongs to every generation, and the preceding one can have no right to bind it up from posterity. Such extension of property is quite unnatural." Smith said: "There is no point more difficult to account for than the right we conceive men to have to dispose of their goods after death."
The states left no doubt that in taking this step they were giving expression to a basic and widely shared philosophical belief that equality of citizenship was impossible in a nation where inequality of wealth remained the rule. North Carolina's 1784 statute explained that by keeping large estates together for succeeding generations, the old system had served "only to raise the wealth and importance of particular families and individuals, giving them an unequal and undue influence in a republic" and promoting "contention and injustice." Abolishing aristocratic forms of inheritance would by contrast "tend to promote that equality of property which is of the spirit and principle of a genuine republic."
Others wanted to go much further; Thomas Paine, like Smith and Jefferson, made much of the idea that landed property itself was an affront to the natural right of each generation to the usufruct of the earth, and proposed a "ground rent" — in fact an inheritance tax — on property at the time it is conveyed at death, with the money so collected to be distributed to all citizens at age 21, "as a compensation in part, for the loss of his or her natural inheritance, by the introduction of the system of landed property."
very well then. I cede to you victory in fantasy land and shall content myself with merely be correct in reality.No, all I am doing is comparing apples to apples - taking the IRS official rates and applying them equally to three different cases each involving a different source of money that is taxed differently by the IRS.
actually, as both the IRS and CBO have demonstrated, they tend to come in fairly close together so that you can establish effective tax rates for each of the quintiles and indeed, even smaller income ranges.Actual deductions of individuals vary widely and greatly from person to individual.
except that we aren't using real categories of taxation, but rather fantasy categories of taxation. hotcha. well yes, once you alter input to assume your result, your result is what you shall likely get.It does NOT matter if Romney pays more than the AVERAGE taxpayer. We are NOT comparing Romney to the average taxpayer. We are comparing people who make the same amount of money in three different categories of taxation for that same money.
yes. except that you also add in "gifts" and you refuse to provide a clear definition of either "gifts" or "inheritance" as it applies to the parent-child relationship. you also utterly fail to either grasp or answer the point that forms of wealth are different in nature - that taxing someone who inherits an $8 million brokerage account is different from taxing someone who inherits $5 million worth of land farmed with $2 million worth of equipment and having $1 million worth of barns, silos, a house, etc. In the one case the wealth is easily divisible. A dollar in a brokerage account does not become worth less because it's neighbor is shifted to a government account. In the other division is highly destructive. Farmland is useless without equipment. all of your examples utilize only the most liquid forms of wealth either because you think that only this form is inherited, or because you do not wish to own up to the destruction caused by your taxation of the less liquid forms.As for the estate tax, I have come up with a clear and consistent principle: we tax wages, capital gains and inheritance as income according to the same rate schedules.
I couldn't give two lamb shakes for the plight of the rich. They seem to be doing just fine on their own. My point (which you consistently ignore) is that your proposed policy helps the uber rich while harming the poor and middle class to upper middle class.I understand that you coming out and defending the rich and defending low taxes for the rich and you endorsing a discriminatory rate for the rich is not a winning argument.
establish justice
preserve domestic tranquility
promote the general welfare
The guys who wrote that thing strongly disagree with you.
Inheritance or estate taxes have been around for a very long time - both in the world and in the USA.
Estate Taxes An Historical Perspective
Right on this very site we were provided with some quotes from founding fathers who supported estate and inheritance taxes.
Estate tax and the founding fathers: You can't take it with you | The Economist
Nothing in the US Constitution prohibits estate or inheritance taxes.
tsk. and you were a history teacher, too. My APUS teacher would have eaten me alive, had I suggested that Jefferson or Paine had authored the Preamble to the Constitution of the United States.
except that we aren't using real categories of taxation, but rather fantasy categories of taxation. hotcha. well yes, once you alter input to assume your result, your result is what you shall likely get.
As for the estate tax, I have come up with a clear and consistent principle: we tax wages, capital gains and inheritance as income according to the same rate schedules.
yes. except that you also add in "gifts" and you refuse to provide a clear definition of either "gifts" or "inheritance" as it applies to the parent-child relationship. you also utterly fail to either grasp or answer the point that forms of wealth are different in nature - that taxing someone who inherits an $8 million brokerage account is different from taxing someone who inherits $5 million worth of land farmed with $2 million worth of equipment and having $1 million worth of barns, silos, a house, etc. In the one case the wealth is easily divisible. A dollar in a brokerage account does not become worth less because it's neighbor is shifted to a government account. In the other division is highly destructive. Farmland is useless without equipment. all of your examples utilize only the most liquid forms of wealth either because you think that only this form is inherited, or because you do not wish to own up to the destruction caused by your taxation of the less liquid forms.
My point (which you consistently ignore) is that your proposed policy helps the uber rich while harming the poor and middle class to upper middle class.
that might be both the most moronic comment I have seen on this board posted in seriousness and one of the most disturbing. You have clearly absolutely no clue what the government is about and what it was founded on.
Let me get this straight first you accuse me of being envyous, when I say I envy no person , you say it's moronic?
Then you say the Preamble is just a lot of nonsence?
In previous post you were complaining about government taking away your rights now you say no clue how government works.
So tell me how does government work?
So who wrote the words "WE THE PEOPLE" and what did they have in mind?eace
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?