$100K-Plus Earners Pay 72% of Federal Income Taxes

[DiamondDave]

As long as a majority of people vote (as I will) to feed hungry children and the non-able-bodied - then it IS the role of government. The role of government is NOT determined by your preferences. It is determined by the will of the people.

No.. it is determined by the rule of law.. if you knew anything about our government at all, you would know that

The food stamp program is the law.

And there are many current laws that are AGAINST the powers granted within the constitution.. which IS the PROBLEM

 

[nodoginnafight]

NO it is not.... it is to ensure the freedom for you to succeed or fail all on your own.. if you CANNOT take care of yourself.. you become a ward of the state... like a person in a coma in a state home, a prisoner, or other similar ones that are not guaranteed a freedom

It is covered in Article 1, Section 1 of the Constitution

No.. it is not

Section. 1.

All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

Says nothing about the government being responsible for each citizen's personal well being

And if it is not specifically a power granted within the constitution (which it is not), the 10th amendment reserves that power for the states or the individuals

idiot

"Provide for the general welfare"



You prefer a totalitarian regime where your preferences usurp the will of the people.
That is not going to happen in the U.S.

 

[DiamondDave]

Yes it is

NO it is not.... it is to ensure the freedom for you to succeed or fail all on your own.. if you CANNOT take care of yourself.. you become a ward of the state... like a person in a coma in a state home, a prisoner, or other similar ones that are not guaranteed a freedom

It's the responsibility of the federal government to reflect the will of the people. When the will of people becomes 'let the hungry starve', or 'let the sick die' then it's the responsibility of the federal government to do so.

Show the quote within the constitution.. it is that simple

 

[DiamondDave]

It is covered in Article 1, Section 1 of the Constitution

No.. it is not

Section. 1.

All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

Says nothing about the government being responsible for each citizen's personal well being

And if it is not specifically a power granted within the constitution (which it is not), the 10th amendment reserves that power for the states or the individuals

idiot

"Provide for the general welfare"

Those who have studied the Constitution and know it far better than you have determined otherwise.

You prefer a totalitarian regime where your preferences usurp the will of the people.
That is not going to happen in the U.S.

You do not get to end the phrase or section after a word on WHIM.. the rest of article 1 section 8 CONTINUES to define what it is for and what it is SPECIFICALLY limited to

you want to add to it.. amend it.. the problem is the government added because it wanted to under assumption, not amendment

 

[DiamondDave]

Section. 8.

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;--And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

 

[DiamondDave]

stupid godamn big government lefties forget that it continues after the word welfare

 

[nodoginnafight]

Provide for the general welfare

Totalitarians always want THEIR way -

Not in the U.S. - ain't happenin'

 

[NYcarbineer]

No.. it is determined by the rule of law.. if you knew anything about our government at all, you would know that

The food stamp program is the law.

And there are many current laws that are AGAINST the powers granted within the constitution.. which IS the PROBLEM

And by the rule of law anyone with standing can challenge those laws in the courts. You're beating your head against a brick wall here;

your problem is that democratic government in the current United States of America doesn't advance your agenda, your personal beliefs, opinions, and preferences.

If that's a problem, it's your problem, not the country's problem.

 

[DiamondDave]

Provide for the general welfare

Totalitarians always want THEIR way -

Not in the U.S. - ain't happenin'

You do not just get to end it on a word in the middle of the phrasing because it suits you.. it was written and punctuated that way for a purpose

 

[edthecynic]

It wouldn't even be felt.

People live on their net not their gross.

If you make 500 a week and took home 450 you would live on the 450.

And if a millionaire paid an extra 10% it wouldn't be felt either, they would just live on $15,000 a week instead of $17,000 a week.

Then I guess other unequal treatment would be fine for you as well.. for example, more more heavily weighed vote based on income.. or access to some government services if you make over X amount or are in the higher tax brackets??

Funny how it is the conservative that is for actual equality in treatment... while we hear the lefties like you screaming for it only when it is for the benefit of your cause

That's what exists today and CON$ have no problem with it! If you can afford $100,000 a plate dinner then you cam meet with any elected official, including the president, no matter which Party. It is CON$ who cheered the unequal treatment money buys in politics ala Citizens United.

 

[NYcarbineer]

NO it is not.... it is to ensure the freedom for you to succeed or fail all on your own.. if you CANNOT take care of yourself.. you become a ward of the state... like a person in a coma in a state home, a prisoner, or other similar ones that are not guaranteed a freedom

It's the responsibility of the federal government to reflect the will of the people. When the will of people becomes 'let the hungry starve', or 'let the sick die' then it's the responsibility of the federal government to do so.

Show the quote within the constitution.. it is that simple

I would think that under the circumstances the burden of proof would be with you to show where in the Constitution it says that the responsibility of the federal government is to act contrary to the will of the people.

 

[DiamondDave]

Section. 8.

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises,
Pretty self explanatory...

to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;
Notice the punctuation.. it CONTINUES

but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
The explanation stating that when it is done it is to be done uniform (as it is not now)... and notice the punctuation again... showing a list to follow


To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;--And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.


Now... the list has ended... it is very specific... and laid out in the power of the areas of which the taxes, duties, etc for the welfare of the United States (AKA the Union of the states)... when the framers meant the people or individuals, they happened to say so.. this is not the case in this section.. this is for the actual union and the interaction between the states.. you know.. those things that gave the government its power


Just because there has be power abuse and misuse by power hungry people within our government, does not mean it has been right or constitutional to do so.... the use of language and punctuation was important to educated people back then.. and it was chosen very carefully....

The federal government in more modern times, against amendment 10, assumed it had to power to grab power without the amendment process.. and people being pandered to and blind to the power grab went along with it... aiding the tyranny.. and the more it was done, the more they became blind to it... those people now think the constitution was just a guideline and means nothing in 'modern day'.... even though they and the government itself treats it like it means nothing, in actuality it is the end all be all for the limitation of a tyrannical governmental process... as your buddy franco would say.. you have been duped

 

[DiamondDave]

And if a millionaire paid an extra 10% it wouldn't be felt either, they would just live on $15,000 a week instead of $17,000 a week.

Then I guess other unequal treatment would be fine for you as well.. for example, more more heavily weighed vote based on income.. or access to some government services if you make over X amount or are in the higher tax brackets??

Funny how it is the conservative that is for actual equality in treatment... while we hear the lefties like you screaming for it only when it is for the benefit of your cause

That's what exists today and CON$ have no problem with it! If you can afford $100,000 a plate dinner then you cam meet with any elected official, including the president, no matter which Party. It is CON$ who cheered the unequal treatment money buys in politics ala Citizens United.

Actually.. a dinner is not access to a service... and I am against the way funds are raised for elections.. and I would welcome reform

 

[DiamondDave]

It's the responsibility of the federal government to reflect the will of the people. When the will of people becomes 'let the hungry starve', or 'let the sick die' then it's the responsibility of the federal government to do so.

Show the quote within the constitution.. it is that simple

I would think that under the circumstances the burden of proof would be with you to show where in the Constitution it says that the responsibility of the federal government is to act contrary to the will of the people.

The burden of proof would show where it was set up only to rule by the will of the majority.. the constitution in itself limits the republic to the rule of law... it limits the government very specifically.. and where the government is limited, all other things are left to the freedom of the states and the citizenry on their own to then take care of it outside of the federal government.. whether that be thru state or whatever other level of government, or thru the freedom of the people themselves

The constitution is a LIMITING document... not granting all other powers... it grants specific powers and reserves the rest for the states and individuals... the burden is to show the proof where within the limitations, the power is specifically granted to the federal government...

My proof is the fact that it is not listed within the granted powers

 

[Skull Pilot]

Is your niece able to pay for her college expenses with her minimum wage job? I did when I went to college

No, she chose an expensive college.

I've asked you about this before and you've avoided answering. How much was tuition when you went to college and how much was minimum wage?

My first years tuition was $650 a year and I made $2.10 an hour working minimum wage over the summer

A student making $7.25 an hour over the summer would make $3500 over the summer. Not even close to paying tuition at a public or private college

So what?

BTW when I was working summers to save up tuition I never made just minimum wage and I never worked just one job. When I couldn't afford to pay for an entire semester I went part time.

 

[Skull Pilot]

I am all for a flat tax on all income. One low rate no deductions no exemptions and no special treatment.

I think 10 - 12 % on all income from the first dollar earned is reasonable.

That's a tax increase for most low to moderate income Americans and a huge tax cut for most upper income/rich Americans.

not if it is applied to all forms of income. the rich get a small % of their income from paychecks.

The bottom tax bracket is already at 10% so it's not a tax hike all we would be doing is not exempting anyone from the tax.

 

[Skull Pilot]

For someone making $18,000 a year - $1,800 in income taxes is a huge bite.
You are certainly entitled to your opinion - but I disagree.

It wouldn't even be felt.

People live on their net not their gross.

If you make 500 a week and took home 450 you would live on the 450.

Your opinion that "it wouldn't even be felt" has no basis in reality.

$150 less per month - for someone who is living at that level is a HUGE bite. I respect your right to your opinion, but I believe it is absurd. And I think the vast majority of Americans would agree. But I guess we will see - let me know when they start taxing 10% on the very poorest Americans.

People already have taxes taken out of their pay so there would be very little if any difference in their net pay.

 

[Skull Pilot]

For someone making $18,000 a year - $1,800 in income taxes is a huge bite.
You are certainly entitled to your opinion - but I disagree.

It wouldn't even be felt.

People live on their net not their gross.

If you make 500 a week and took home 450 you would live on the 450.

And if a millionaire paid an extra 10% it wouldn't be felt either, they would just live on $15,000 a week instead of $17,000 a week.

Subjective crap.

If we are going to tax income then everyone should pay the same per dollar earned just like everyone pays the same tax on every gallon of gasoline purchased.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Show the quote within the constitution.. it is that simple

I would think that under the circumstances the burden of proof would be with you to show where in the Constitution it says that the responsibility of the federal government is to act contrary to the will of the people.

The burden of proof would show where it was set up only to rule by the will of the majority.. the constitution in itself limits the republic to the rule of law... it limits the government very specifically.. and where the government is limited, all other things are left to the freedom of the states and the citizenry on their own to then take care of it outside of the federal government.. whether that be thru state or whatever other level of government, or thru the freedom of the people themselves

The constitution is a LIMITING document... not granting all other powers... it grants specific powers and reserves the rest for the states and individuals... the burden is to show the proof where within the limitations, the power is specifically granted to the federal government...

My proof is the fact that it is not listed within the granted powers

The Constitution is based on explicit and implied powers given to the Federal Government.

The actual exercise of those powers is based on laws enacted by the majority of the people's representatives.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Damn RW why did you have to kill his thread in the first post?

Looks like it's up to 25 pages now.....

[MENTION=25032]ClosedCaption[/MENTION]

So? He still killed it.

[MENTION=25032]ClosedCaption[/MENTION]

Page 31