Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Reports of protests are overblown. A few incidents around the country, but nothing major.

5 (45.5%)

A few major incidents in capitals, but nothing much in DC.

5 (45.5%)

A major incident in DC, but nothing much around the country.

0 (0%)

More than 10 capitals have major upheavals, but nothing much in DC.

0 (0%)

A major incident in DC plus more than 10 capitals with significant upheavals.

1 (9.1%)

More than half the capitals around the country have problems with protesters, but DC is quiet.

0 (0%)

DC has major problems, while more than half the capitals around the country also have considerable trouble with protesters.

0 (0%)

Huge disruption to the day.

0 (0%)

Total Members Voted: 9

Voting closed: January 19, 2021, 10:49:21 PM

[REDSTATEWARD]

The inheritance tax,is immoral.  The Warren " wealth tax" is illegal.

Repeating yourself does not actually constitute an argument.

I am stating a fact not an argument.

And btw, gift taxes happen while you're alive - and it is, again, the FEDERAL government taxing money that you have already been taxed on.

Who pays gift taxes?

So, no, not yours forever, under certain circumstances.

Under ALL circumstances

And... you misinterpret what the 16th Amendment was/is for. It was not to restrict the taxing ability of Congress, but to answer/reverse a prior SCOTUS decision that blocked income taxes as had been formulated under a prior law.

One example of an explanation at hand is here:
https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1218&context=faculty_publications

Nice article 
Doesn't change the the meaning of the 16th amendment.
Taxing wealth is illegal.

What do you call property taxes?

He would call it irrelevant .....

You are finally right about something.  Now pat yourself 

[REDSTATEWARD]

ergo....

Ergo They are irrelevant to the conversation.

[facilitatorn]

If you confess now and ask for the settlement, the IRS may let you repay what you owe in installments instead of confiscating everything but your last diaper, Red. Your argument is getting no closer to actual law and you aren’t looking any less culpable.

[LarryBnDC]

The inheritance tax,is immoral.  The Warren " wealth tax" is illegal.

Repeating yourself does not actually constitute an argument.

I am stating a fact not an argument.

And btw, gift taxes happen while you're alive - and it is, again, the FEDERAL government taxing money that you have already been taxed on.

Who pays gift taxes?

So, no, not yours forever, under certain circumstances.

Under ALL circumstances

And... you misinterpret what the 16th Amendment was/is for. It was not to restrict the taxing ability of Congress, but to answer/reverse a prior SCOTUS decision that blocked income taxes as had been formulated under a prior law.

One example of an explanation at hand is here:
https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1218&context=faculty_publications

Nice article 
Doesn't change the the meaning of the 16th amendment.
Taxing wealth is illegal.

What do you call property taxes?

Property taxes are the primary source of money for local governments to provide necessary public services such as fire and police protection, schools, etc.

Holy fuck! That sounds like soshulism...

Seriously though.

So how does that make it illegal to tax wealth? You think wealthy folks don’t hide ASSETS from the IRS?

[REDSTATEWARD]

The inheritance tax,is immoral.  The Warren " wealth tax" is illegal.

Repeating yourself does not actually constitute an argument.

I am stating a fact not an argument.

And btw, gift taxes happen while you're alive - and it is, again, the FEDERAL government taxing money that you have already been taxed on.

Who pays gift taxes?

So, no, not yours forever, under certain circumstances.

Under ALL circumstances

And... you misinterpret what the 16th Amendment was/is for. It was not to restrict the taxing ability of Congress, but to answer/reverse a prior SCOTUS decision that blocked income taxes as had been formulated under a prior law.

One example of an explanation at hand is here:
https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1218&context=faculty_publications

Nice article 
Doesn't change the the meaning of the 16th amendment.
Taxing wealth is illegal.

What do you call property taxes?

Property taxes are the primary source of money for local governments to provide necessary public services such as fire and police protection, schools, etc.

Holy fuck! That sounds like soshulism...

No it doesn't.

[whiskeypriest]

I have a billion dollars. I give my kid $15,000,000 and I pay the gift tax.

IOW, you have been taxed twice by the federal government on the same money.

There, there. /pats head/

There is no gift tax to be paid.
But at least you are grasping the idea that taxes are paid when money is earned, not when it is saved or invested. Income from accumulated wealth is subject to the income tax.

Is it ignorance or mere cussedness that prevents you from uttering the truth?

"There is no gift tax to be paid."

The IRS begs to differ with you.
https://www.irs.com/articles/7-things-you-should-know-about-gift-tax

"taxes are paid when money is earned, not when it is saved or invested. Income from accumulated wealth is subject to the income tax."

No.

INCOME taxes are paid when money is earned.

GIFT taxes are paid when money is given to another person (depending on amount and purpose). This is an example you keep denying, but your denying it doesn't cause it to stop existing. And yes, there are people who pay gift taxes.

ESTATE taxes are not about money's being earned, either.

And the proposed WEALTH tax no more falls afoul of the Constitution than either GIFT taxes or ESTATE taxes, despite your utter misrepresentation (or misunderstanding) of the 16th Amendment.

Except for property taxes, we tax the transfer of wealth. Technically all of it has been taxed before, even the money we pay in sales tax. We tax the transfer of wealth with gift and estate taxes. Warren's proposal is different from either of those. It is closer to property tax, which taxes accumulated property. Not that Red is right about its constitutionality. He has no real clue himself and is regurgitating something he picked up on a right wing web site that he, from my experience with him here, he is incapable of fully understanding.

Mind you my worst grade in my entire academic career was in tax law. The estimable professor had an expansive sense of humor and while seeing me cram for the exam in the cafeteria on the day of the exam offered to give me a C+ without taking the test. I foolishly declined, but I suspect he was not serious.

[josh]

The inheritance tax,is immoral.  The Warren " wealth tax" is illegal.

Repeating yourself does not actually constitute an argument.

I am stating a fact not an argument.

And btw, gift taxes happen while you're alive - and it is, again, the FEDERAL government taxing money that you have already been taxed on.

Who pays gift taxes?

So, no, not yours forever, under certain circumstances.

Under ALL circumstances

And... you misinterpret what the 16th Amendment was/is for. It was not to restrict the taxing ability of Congress, but to answer/reverse a prior SCOTUS decision that blocked income taxes as had been formulated under a prior law.

One example of an explanation at hand is here:
https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1218&context=faculty_publications

Nice article 
Doesn't change the the meaning of the 16th amendment.
Taxing wealth is illegal.

What do you call property taxes?

He would call it irrelevant .....

You are finally right about something.  Now pat yourself

While you continue to ignore how deeply wrong you are about gift taxes and about paying taxes twice on the same earned income. And still insisting the 16th Amendment means something it doesn't.

Poor, poor man, deep in denial of the realities he lives in.

[REDSTATEWARD]

The inheritance tax,is immoral.  The Warren " wealth tax" is illegal.

Repeating yourself does not actually constitute an argument.

I am stating a fact not an argument.

And btw, gift taxes happen while you're alive - and it is, again, the FEDERAL government taxing money that you have already been taxed on.

Who pays gift taxes?

So, no, not yours forever, under certain circumstances.

Under ALL circumstances

And... you misinterpret what the 16th Amendment was/is for. It was not to restrict the taxing ability of Congress, but to answer/reverse a prior SCOTUS decision that blocked income taxes as had been formulated under a prior law.

One example of an explanation at hand is here:
https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1218&context=faculty_publications

Nice article 
Doesn't change the the meaning of the 16th amendment.
Taxing wealth is illegal.

What do you call property taxes?

He would call it irrelevant .....

You are finally right about something.  Now pat yourself

While you continue to ignore how deeply wrong you are about gift taxes and about paying taxes twice on the same earned income. And still insisting the 16th Amendment means something it doesn't.

Poor, poor man, deep in denial of the realities he lives in.

Quitting so soon?

[REDSTATEWARD]

I have a billion dollars. I give my kid $15,000,000 and I pay the gift tax.

IOW, you have been taxed twice by the federal government on the same money.

There, there. /pats head/

There is no gift tax to be paid.
But at least you are grasping the idea that taxes are paid when money is earned, not when it is saved or invested. Income from accumulated wealth is subject to the income tax.

Is it ignorance or mere cussedness that prevents you from uttering the truth?

"There is no gift tax to be paid."

The IRS begs to differ with you.
https://www.irs.com/articles/7-things-you-should-know-about-gift-tax

"taxes are paid when money is earned, not when it is saved or invested. Income from accumulated wealth is subject to the income tax."

No.

INCOME taxes are paid when money is earned.

GIFT taxes are paid when money is given to another person (depending on amount and purpose). This is an example you keep denying, but your denying it doesn't cause it to stop existing. And yes, there are people who pay gift taxes.

ESTATE taxes are not about money's being earned, either.

And the proposed WEALTH tax no more falls afoul of the Constitution than either GIFT taxes or ESTATE taxes, despite your utter misrepresentation (or misunderstanding) of the 16th Amendment.

Except for property taxes, we tax the transfer of wealth. Technically all of it has been taxed before, even the money we pay in sales tax. We tax the transfer of wealth with gift and estate taxes. Warren's proposal is different from either of those. It is closer to property tax, which taxes accumulated property.

Warren  is proposing only one thing. A tax based on wealth  targeted to the very wealthy.  That tax violates the 16th amendment. The 16th allows taxing income but not your bank account.  (unless your bank account generates new income)
Someone who wins $100 million(after paying all taxes) in a lottery and invests it will pay yearly income taxes on the amount of money earned off the original investment. ( @5% That amounts to $5 Million)  The original $100 million is not taxed.
Warren,however, proposes  a one per cent tax every year on $49 million of the principal in addition to the taxes on the new income.

[josh]

I have a billion dollars. I give my kid $15,000,000 and I pay the gift tax.

IOW, you have been taxed twice by the federal government on the same money.

There, there. /pats head/

There is no gift tax to be paid.
But at least you are grasping the idea that taxes are paid when money is earned, not when it is saved or invested. Income from accumulated wealth is subject to the income tax.

Is it ignorance or mere cussedness that prevents you from uttering the truth?

"There is no gift tax to be paid."

The IRS begs to differ with you.
https://www.irs.com/articles/7-things-you-should-know-about-gift-tax

"taxes are paid when money is earned, not when it is saved or invested. Income from accumulated wealth is subject to the income tax."

No.

INCOME taxes are paid when money is earned.

GIFT taxes are paid when money is given to another person (depending on amount and purpose). This is an example you keep denying, but your denying it doesn't cause it to stop existing. And yes, there are people who pay gift taxes.

ESTATE taxes are not about money's being earned, either.

And the proposed WEALTH tax no more falls afoul of the Constitution than either GIFT taxes or ESTATE taxes, despite your utter misrepresentation (or misunderstanding) of the 16th Amendment.

Except for property taxes, we tax the transfer of wealth. Technically all of it has been taxed before, even the money we pay in sales tax. We tax the transfer of wealth with gift and estate taxes. Warren's proposal is different from either of those. It is closer to property tax, which taxes accumulated property.

Warren  is proposing only one thing. A tax based on wealth  targeted to the very wealthy.  That tax violates the 16th amendment. The 16th allows taxing income but not your bank account.  (unless your bank account generates new income)

It's as if you have read none of the links that explain why you are wrong.

The 16th Amendment allows taxing of income, but does not preclude other taxes.

Your interpretation is wrong, wrong, wrong.

[bankshot1]

I think its both funny and sad, that Red is so invested in fighting rough proposal(s)/talking points to potential tax increases, that as I understand it, is targeted to the top 1/10 of 1%, basically billionaires, to raise tax revenues to help provide basic and needed servces to millions in this country, including adequate healthcare, social security and infrastructure, like roads and bridges or telecom/internet for rural America. And his doggged defense comes after the corrupt Repubs gutted the treasury of $1.5 trillion in targeted tax benefits and reductions for this same priviledged caste.

And not one word of condemnation of the treason perpetrated on the country by the Trump crime family in their dirty pursuit of Russian funding for their various criminal enterprises.

Red's nothing more than a stooge enabler of the corrupt Russian puppet in the WH.   

[bankshot1]

I have a billion dollars. I give my kid $15,000,000 and I pay the gift tax.

IOW, you have been taxed twice by the federal government on the same money.

There, there. /pats head/

There is no gift tax to be paid.
But at least you are grasping the idea that taxes are paid when money is earned, not when it is saved or invested. Income from accumulated wealth is subject to the income tax.

Is it ignorance or mere cussedness that prevents you from uttering the truth?

"There is no gift tax to be paid."

The IRS begs to differ with you.
https://www.irs.com/articles/7-things-you-should-know-about-gift-tax

"taxes are paid when money is earned, not when it is saved or invested. Income from accumulated wealth is subject to the income tax."

No.

INCOME taxes are paid when money is earned.

GIFT taxes are paid when money is given to another person (depending on amount and purpose). This is an example you keep denying, but your denying it doesn't cause it to stop existing. And yes, there are people who pay gift taxes.

ESTATE taxes are not about money's being earned, either.

And the proposed WEALTH tax no more falls afoul of the Constitution than either GIFT taxes or ESTATE taxes, despite your utter misrepresentation (or misunderstanding) of the 16th Amendment.

Except for property taxes, we tax the transfer of wealth. Technically all of it has been taxed before, even the money we pay in sales tax. We tax the transfer of wealth with gift and estate taxes. Warren's proposal is different from either of those. It is closer to property tax, which taxes accumulated property.

Warren  is proposing only one thing. A tax based on wealth  targeted to the very wealthy.  That tax violates the 16th amendment. The 16th allows taxing income but not your bank account.  (unless your bank account generates new income)

And as posted a couple of days ago Prof Tribe, a reknowned scholar of the U.S Constitution, and six of his colleagues at the Harvard Law School opined that Warren's plan was in fact constitutional.
So on one had we have experts and scholars in constitutional law saying Warren's plan is constitutionally legal, and on the other hand Red, is jerking off to some far-right website which says, its not.

someone get Red a tissue.

[REDSTATEWARD]

The 16th Amendment allows taxing of income, but does not preclude other taxes.

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

[josh]

The 16th Amendment allows taxing of income, but does not preclude other taxes.

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

Yes.

It is not exclusionary.

It was to undo a SCOTUS decision (that has since been considered mistaken, itself).

[REDSTATEWARD]

The 16th Amendment allows taxing of income, but does not preclude other taxes.

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.


Yes.

It is not exclusionary.

It is limited to income.