Because 1) expendable income is a sliding scale, and 2) quid pro quo.Originally Posted by hiimjered
If a guy after paying $5 mill in taxes still has $5 million after tax, that doesn't sound like horrible punishment to me. I should be punished so.What you describe sounds like punishing success or class warfare, not equal treatment.
Participant
Progressive taxation isn't in violation of the 14th amendment; that's an absurdity. The 14th amendment is applied to what is called suspect classes. These are mostly racial and religious minorities. This has been the subject of some debate in regards to the debate over same-sex marriage, ie, are homosexuals a suspect class. Whichever way you look at it, wealthy individuals will never fall under the category of suspect class.
A million after tax is plenty for any reasonable person, Irie....why not take $9 million and leave him $1 million?
See.... this is the rabbit hole we go down when we pretend to champion equality and equal protections for all citizens...instead of strictly adhering to the notion of equality and equal protections for all citizens.
Last edited by webrockk; Apr 20 2012 at 07:52 PM.
The smallest minority on the earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities ~ Ayn Rand
What?
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States....."
The smallest minority on the earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities ~ Ayn Rand
Analyst
What is judicial power then?
It means while there are no interpretive powers for the Supreme Court in the Constitution, custom and precedent has established such powers. Strict constructionism has no basis in reality as a result. While you are correct that the Supreme Court has no right to judicial review, the Supreme Court has trumped such with precedent established circa 1803. You can argue otherwise, and would be correct. It simply does not matter to the USSC.
Last edited by thediplomat2.0; Apr 20 2012 at 08:04 PM.
The New Age Politician: Representing the greatest number of ideologies, constituents, and solutions.
Participant
Yes, and all citizens have equal protection of the law. However, suspect classes are ones that are deemed to be likely on the receiving end of discrimination. As a result, these classes will receive closer scrutiny by courts when there is allegation of discriminatory action against one of these suspect classes. In the case of wealthy Americans, they are hardly being discriminated against via moderately higher taxation considering the fact that they are wealthy. A rational basis review of any allegation of discriminatory action against wealthy people in regards to taxation would dismiss any claim of violation of the 14th amendment.
Last edited by bAd Hominemzzz; Apr 20 2012 at 08:07 PM.
Analyst
Taxes on the federal level are to pay for legitimate functions of government. Wealth distribution (not redistribution because wealth is EARNED in the first place by someone, and not given) is not a legitimate function of government. The vast majority of tax money and the entire deficit is spent on violations of the Constitution mostly started by Democrats after Democrat FDR threatened the Supreme Court because they kept ruling his "New Deal" unconstitutional. Google the "Switch in Time that Saved Nine."
The pile of pennies on the left are mostly for unconstitutional Democrat spending. The pennies on left and in the middle represent the tax money collected. The pile of pennies on the right represent deficit spending. All the pennies together represent the annual budget. The entire left pile of pennies (minus a few cents) is spent on Democrat unconstitutional entitlements that no one has a right to receive, and then Democrats take many pennies out of the middle section to pay for various wealth distribution schemes like "Cash for Clunkers" type programs, or bailouts for unconstitutional GSEs like Freddie and Fannie which they created. As you can clearly see if there were no unconstitutional Democrat spending there would be no deficits. To say that constitutional spending creates deficits is to legitimize unconstitutional Democrat spending.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cWt8hTayupE
Of course it is all unconstitutional. Article 1 Section 8 has enumerated powers. Democrats and Anti-Constitutionalists (is there a difference?) want to state that anything THEY deem is for the “general welfare” is acceptable under the Constitution ignoring the enumerated power to so provide for both the Common Defense, AND the General Welfare. They did not write the Constitution or debate its meaning. James Madison is often referred to as the Father of the Constitution. He said the following proving false any Democrat assertion that ANYTHING they define to provide for the General Welfare is Constitutional, and therefore can be funded through tax money legitimately.
“With respect to the words general welfare, I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.”
– James Madison, Letter to James Robertson April 20, 1831
“If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision of the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, everything, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress…. Were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited Government established by the people of America.”
– James Madison, Letter to Edmund Pendleton, January 21, 1792
Here is another lengthy Madison explanation of a limited federal government that does not include Democrat usurped unlimited power.
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/found...a1_8_1s27.html
"And lord I can't make any changes
All I can do is write em in a song"
Quid pro quo assumes that the government gave that businessman his money. It assumes that the businessman didn't earn that money himself. That just isn't true. Everyone has the same opportunity to get wealthy in our country, the people who take advantage of that opportunity shouldn't be penalized more than those who don't.
As for the "enough" idea in your second statement: Poverty line income is enough by definition. Every penny over that is more than is required by that person. There is no real difference between the first thousand or the second million. Every one of those dollars is unnecessary money and should be taxed equally.
Even that second statement of yours falsely implies that the person being taxed was just given his money. You could be in the same situation if you were just willing to work your way up to it. Instead you choose to stay in your own station in life and try to punish those that do work their way up.
We shouldn't punish success.
TANSTAAFL
This ^^^^ cannot be repeated often enough.
To forcefully take property from one individual endowed with equal, inalienable individual rights to private property....
and directly disseminate it to other individuals endowed with those identical endowed rights...
is an egregious violation of constitutionally prescribed equality and equal protections under the law.
Last edited by webrockk; Apr 21 2012 at 04:33 AM.
The smallest minority on the earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities ~ Ayn Rand
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks