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

[josh]

No, the 16th amendment only created the INCOME tax, it did not negate other forms of taxation.

Yes, I know.

That is what I have been arguing all the way along.

You have been arguing that the proposed tax by Warren was unconstitutional because it was not an income tax.

I said Warren's proposal is unconstitutional since it fails as an income tax and as an unapportioned direct tax.
Perhaps you were not paying attention.



Of course, you also argued that "nobody pays a gift tax."

I imagine you will deny both of those, now.

Lie, deny, and obfuscate.

"Perhaps you were not paying attention" is pretty funny, given the rest of that post.

And neither is the gift tax.

[REDSTATEWARD]

No, the 16th amendment only created the INCOME tax, it did not negate other forms of taxation.

Yes, I know.

That is what I have been arguing all the way along.

You have been arguing that the proposed tax by Warren was unconstitutional because it was not an income tax.

I said Warren's proposal is unconstitutional since it fails as an income tax and as an unapportioned direct tax.
Perhaps you were not paying attention.



Of course, you also argued that "nobody pays a gift tax."

I imagine you will deny both of those, now.

Lie, deny, and obfuscate.

"Perhaps you were not paying attention" is pretty funny, given the rest of that post.

And neither is the gift tax.

You seem hung up on the gift tax for some reason.
It is also not an income tax.

[josh]

No, the 16th amendment only created the INCOME tax, it did not negate other forms of taxation.

Yes, I know.

That is what I have been arguing all the way along.

You have been arguing that the proposed tax by Warren was unconstitutional because it was not an income tax.

I said Warren's proposal is unconstitutional since it fails as an income tax and as an unapportioned direct tax.
Perhaps you were not paying attention.



Of course, you also argued that "nobody pays a gift tax."

I imagine you will deny both of those, now.

Lie, deny, and obfuscate.

"Perhaps you were not paying attention" is pretty funny, given the rest of that post.

And neither is the gift tax.

You seem hung up on the gift tax for some reason.
It is also not an income tax.

Yes.

Very good!

So, if it isn't an income tax and it isn't an excise tax and it isn't a duty and it is an unapportioned direct tax, then that would make it like the tax that Elizabeth Warren has proposed.

And that would make Warren's tax no more unconstitutional than the Gift Tax, which has been my point all along. The 16th Amendment has nothing to do with either the Gift Tax or the proposed Wealth Tax - and they are both constitutional.

Hey, maybe they're imposts.

;-)

[REDSTATEWARD]

No, the 16th amendment only created the INCOME tax, it did not negate other forms of taxation.

Yes, I know.

That is what I have been arguing all the way along.

You have been arguing that the proposed tax by Warren was unconstitutional because it was not an income tax.

I said Warren's proposal is unconstitutional since it fails as an income tax and as an unapportioned direct tax.
Perhaps you were not paying attention.



Of course, you also argued that "nobody pays a gift tax."

I imagine you will deny both of those, now.

Lie, deny, and obfuscate.

"Perhaps you were not paying attention" is pretty funny, given the rest of that post.

And neither is the gift tax.

You seem hung up on the gift tax for some reason.
It is also not an income tax.

Yes.

Very good!

So, if it isn't an income tax and it isn't an excise tax and it isn't a duty and it is an unapportioned direct tax, then that would make it like the tax that Elizabeth Warren has proposed.
 
And that would make Warren's tax no more unconstitutional than the Gift Tax, which has been my point all along.

Uh no. Not even close. The Gift Tax is based on an event, a gift. There is no tax unless the donor chooses to make a gift and the taxes can be avoided altogether if the gifts never exceed $11 Million in a lifetime.
Warren’s proposal is a Direct Tax on wealth every year and fails the Constitutional requirements.

[josh]

No, the 16th amendment only created the INCOME tax, it did not negate other forms of taxation.

Yes, I know.

That is what I have been arguing all the way along.

You have been arguing that the proposed tax by Warren was unconstitutional because it was not an income tax.

I said Warren's proposal is unconstitutional since it fails as an income tax and as an unapportioned direct tax.
Perhaps you were not paying attention.



Of course, you also argued that "nobody pays a gift tax."

I imagine you will deny both of those, now.

Lie, deny, and obfuscate.

"Perhaps you were not paying attention" is pretty funny, given the rest of that post.

And neither is the gift tax.

You seem hung up on the gift tax for some reason.
It is also not an income tax.

Yes.

Very good!

So, if it isn't an income tax and it isn't an excise tax and it isn't a duty and it is an unapportioned direct tax, then that would make it like the tax that Elizabeth Warren has proposed.
 
And that would make Warren's tax no more unconstitutional than the Gift Tax, which has been my point all along.

Uh no. Not even close. The Gift Tax is based on an event, a gift. There is no tax unless the donor chooses to make a gift and the taxes can be avoided altogether if the gifts never exceed $11 Million in a lifetime.
Warren’s proposal is a Direct Tax on wealth every year and fails the Constitutional requirements.

I think you will find that  Hylton v. United States, which Roberts leaned on for the legality of the ObamaCare fines, will work for this just fine.

That was about a Direct Tax on wealth every year and it passed Constitutional muster.

Whether you like it or not.

[REDSTATEWARD]

No, the 16th amendment only created the INCOME tax, it did not negate other forms of taxation.

Yes, I know.

That is what I have been arguing all the way along.

You have been arguing that the proposed tax by Warren was unconstitutional because it was not an income tax.

I said Warren's proposal is unconstitutional since it fails as an income tax and as an unapportioned direct tax.
Perhaps you were not paying attention.



Of course, you also argued that "nobody pays a gift tax."

I imagine you will deny both of those, now.

Lie, deny, and obfuscate.

"Perhaps you were not paying attention" is pretty funny, given the rest of that post.

And neither is the gift tax.

You seem hung up on the gift tax for some reason.
It is also not an income tax.

Yes.

Very good!

So, if it isn't an income tax and it isn't an excise tax and it isn't a duty and it is an unapportioned direct tax, then that would make it like the tax that Elizabeth Warren has proposed.
 
And that would make Warren's tax no more unconstitutional than the Gift Tax, which has been my point all along.

Uh no. Not even close. The Gift Tax is based on an event, a gift. There is no tax unless the donor chooses to make a gift and the taxes can be avoided altogether if the gifts never exceed $11 Million in a lifetime.
Warren’s proposal is a Direct Tax on wealth every year and fails the Constitutional requirements.

I think you will find that  Hylton v. United States, which Roberts leaned on for the legality of the ObamaCare fines, will work for this just fine.

That was about a Direct Tax on wealth every year and it passed Constitutional muster.

Another swing and a miss by you.
Robert’s opinion on the ObamaCare “ tax” said  it was not on people or property but rather “it is triggered by specific circumstances” (health insurance). Warren’s tax is on wealth or property which is a direct tax and illegal as courts continually have said.
Warren could call her wealth tax an Excise Tax but that would fail since there is no speciific activity attached. Of course she might claim that the “activity” is being rich in America.

[bodiddley]

Arguing with Red about the constitutionality of taxation (or anything really) seems an enormous waste of time. 

What the Dems need to do is explain WHY they want to tax the wealthy.  Not just for the increased revenue, but what they will do with it.  But also the pernicious affects of inequality, which contributes to the gutting of the middle class and the polarization of politics.  Expose the GOP plutocratic policies and appeals to fears and prejudice (to get the underclass on board with plutocratic policies).  Point out how tax cuts always lead to more debt and benefit the few. 

I think the first proposal should be to rescind Trump's tax cut for the wealthy.  Without that Obama tiptoeing where the Bush cuts were extended a few years before being phased out.

2nd, corporations should have to pay a minimum profit tax of 15%.
No more zeroing out taxes for years and decades.  Scandalous that billion dollar profits are often not taxed at all through the wonders of accounting and tax loopholes.  I'd use Trump's debate line about No company should pay more than 15% tax and flip it so that no corp pays less than that.  We give corporations special privileges and liabilities in order to accumulate wealth.  And when they do, a portion of that should be kicked back.
Talk about the declining tax income from companies and the increased burden on individuals.

Dems need to talk about history.  How income tax rates often were way higher than today.  that companies used to pay a much greater share of federal tax revenue.  That the 60's boom featured rates as high as 90%.  The Clinton Surplus came after a tax increase.  Dems need to sustain narratives and make their case.

Partly you tax billionaires and corporations becaue "that's where the money is."  But also out of fairness.  And also to improve the public good, benefit the people and improve the country.

I'd also be announcing a giant infrastructure building project (jobs!, improvements!) with some of the new tax money. Thew ay forward is pretty clear, but step by step and explaining is also part of the way it gets done.

The Dems also need to consistently and persistently make the case for why they need control of the Senate.  And why they need to have unified gov't control.

[LarryBnDC]

SUCKERS!

https://www.nbcnews.com/business/economy/1-5-trillion-tax-cut-had-no-major-impact-business-n963411

[kidcarter8]

SUCKERS!

https://www.nbcnews.com/business/economy/1-5-trillion-tax-cut-had-no-major-impact-business-n963411

The lower tax rates, however, had an impact in the goods producing sector, with 50 percent of respondents from that sector reporting increased investments at their companies, and 20 percent saying they redirected hiring and investments to the United States from abroad.

[barton]

Notice that the positive effect is from lowering the corporate tax rate to make it more competitive with other nations.  It is not a result of the other tax break for wealthy individuals, where the top bracket was lowered.  And don't forget the nation's debt is ballooning.   In the long run, we all have to contribute more tax dollars just for debt maintenance.   This makes government less effective, having less revenue to work with

[LarryBnDC]

SUCKERS!

https://www.nbcnews.com/business/economy/1-5-trillion-tax-cut-had-no-major-impact-business-n963411

The lower tax rates, however, had an impact in the goods producing sector, with 50 percent of respondents from that sector reporting increased investments at their companies, and 20 percent saying they redirected hiring and investments to the United States from abroad.

Sucker...

[LarryBnDC]

Fuck centrists and their bullshit.


The idea that the times now cry out for deficit-hawkery married to MBA-worship is not a little horrifying. But it's a quite predictable reaction to the current political moment. As you can see by the hysterical reaction to Senator Professor Warren's proposed wealth-tax, and to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's proposal to bring back the Bolshevism of John F. Kennedy's tax plans, the masters of the universe are running scared for the first time in a long while. This is a good thing. God knows they need the exercise.


https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/a26061564/howard-schultz-kamala-harris-presidential-campaign-2020/

[oilcan]

Centrists:  be nice to the rich and keep them from fleeing the country.

Me:  Drain the rich.  Then eat the rich.  (they're tasty because they don't run very much - it's like veal)

[NeedsAdjustments]

https://nypost.com/2019/01/26/president-trump-is-down-but-not-out/

While Trump has emphasized border security he lost a mid-term by a historically wide margin, his polling has tanked, and even polling on his signature issue (vs. Democrats) has him 15 points in the hole.  This writer things border security is a winning issue for him...I hope Trump is listening.

But this...

Still, Trump is not the first president to put himself behind the eight ball. Sooner or later, they all do.

...is just hilariously bad.

- Complete capitulation on the longest shut-down in history, causing millions of Americans distress for zero reason.
- The lowest polling of any President at this stage in their Presidency, since we did polling.
- A building scandal that is worse than Watergate, by far, that yes is absolutely dinging the President.  There is a direct line from Roger Stone to Trump.

This is unprecedented, and describing it as Trump just being "behind the eight ball" when the current situation has no comparison to any previous administration, is just stupid.

[NeedsAdjustments]

Arguing with Red about the constitutionality of taxation (or anything really) seems an enormous waste of time. 

What the Dems need to do is explain WHY they want to tax the wealthy.  Not just for the increased revenue, but what they will do with it.  But also the pernicious affects of inequality, which contributes to the gutting of the middle class and the polarization of politics.  Expose the GOP plutocratic policies and appeals to fears and prejudice (to get the underclass on board with plutocratic policies).  Point out how tax cuts always lead to more debt and benefit the few. 

I think the first proposal should be to rescind Trump's tax cut for the wealthy.  Without that Obama tiptoeing where the Bush cuts were extended a few years before being phased out.

2nd, corporations should have to pay a minimum profit tax of 15%.
No more zeroing out taxes for years and decades.  Scandalous that billion dollar profits are often not taxed at all through the wonders of accounting and tax loopholes.  I'd use Trump's debate line about No company should pay more than 15% tax and flip it so that no corp pays less than that.  We give corporations special privileges and liabilities in order to accumulate wealth.  And when they do, a portion of that should be kicked back.
Talk about the declining tax income from companies and the increased burden on individuals.

Dems need to talk about history.  How income tax rates often were way higher than today.  that companies used to pay a much greater share of federal tax revenue.  That the 60's boom featured rates as high as 90%.  The Clinton Surplus came after a tax increase.  Dems need to sustain narratives and make their case.

Partly you tax billionaires and corporations becaue "that's where the money is."  But also out of fairness.  And also to improve the public good, benefit the people and improve the country.

I'd also be announcing a giant infrastructure building project (jobs!, improvements!) with some of the new tax money. Thew ay forward is pretty clear, but step by step and explaining is also part of the way it gets done.

The Dems also need to consistently and persistently make the case for why they need control of the Senate.  And why they need to have unified gov't control.

Good post on the issues that should be emphasized in tax debate.

I think many of them are being addressed as part of the discussion.  Particularly as the tax increases are being treated as pay-fors, with revenue going to something specific, that the public wants.

Thats why the oligarchs are running scared.  Attacking AOC and Warren, and in the case of Shultz, contemplating running for President to siphon off enough votes as an independent to re-elect Trump.

The Rich got greedy (surprise...) with Trump.  And now they are scared shitless of a backlash that coulld push the country far further to the left than if they had supported a more moderate Republican. 

But that backlash is coming.  And if the GOP are looking to Trump's leadership to push back against it, they are fucked.