jillian
Princess
In order to determine if a law is Constitutional the individual must be familiar with the US Constitution and free from conflict of interests.I prosed instead the CONSTITUTIONAL TAX , ie, paying for those activities SPECIFICALLY ENUMERATED IN THE CONSTITUTION ----SPECIFICALLY ENUMERATEDHe used the word "credible". I assume he doesn't mean "credible" to you, since you seem to think only rightwing think tanks tell you anything of value.Okay... You said: "No CREDIBLE economist thinks the 'FAIR' tax works with it's numbers. Period!"
I ask you for a citation and you gave me a left-wing think tank writer who is of the opinion that "few mainstream economists think [it's] worthwhile." (a far cry from no credible economist period)
Then you give me Money magazine which admits MANY economists support the idea! (definitely a far cry from 'no credible economist period'!)
I did not ask you if there were some economists who didn't like the Fair Tax idea. I didn't ask you if there were left-wing bloggers who didn't like the idea. I didn't ask you if there were people who were skeptical of it. I asked for a citation to support your claim that "No CREDIBLE economists thinks the 'FAIR' tax works with it's numbers. Period!"
You have FAILED to present that!
the reality:
The flat tax is a fraud. It raises taxes on the poor and lowers them on the rich. ... The rich usually pay a higher percent of their incomes in income taxes than do the poor. A flat tax would eliminate that slight progressivity.
Nowadays most low-income households pay no federal income tax at all – a fact that sends many regressives into spasms of indignation. They conveniently ignore the fact that poor households pay a much larger share of their incomes in payroll taxes, sales taxes, and property taxes (directly, if they own their homes; indirectly, if they rent) than do people with high incomes. ...
The truth is the current tax code treats everyone the same. It’s organized around tax brackets. Everyone whose income reaches the same bracket is treated the same as everyone else whose income reaches that bracket (apart from various deductions, exemptions, and credits, of course).
For example, no one pays any income taxes on the first $20,000 or so of their income... People in higher brackets pay a higher rate only on the portion of their income that hits that bracket — not on their entire incomes.
more at link:
Economist s View The Flat-Tax Fraud
You are talking about the "Flat Tax" and I proposed the "Fair Tax" which is not the same thing. My proposal is not based on incomes at all. It replaces income tax with consumption tax. Now.... Don't care who you are, you should have sense enough to understand the wealthy spend more consuming than poor people. Poor people would get a prebate check to cover their taxes on basic needs, so there would be no tax burden for them.
.
there is nothing unconstitutional about the income tax... no matter how many capital letters you use.
No one will assert the income tax is UNconstitutional who, as a parasite, is the recipient of its proceeds.
.
i guess all the years i studied and practiced are meaningless.
you know nothing about constitutional construction. it is not the "individual" who decides constitutionality.... wingers seem confused by this. if there is a constitutional amendment, it is, by definition, constitutional. if the high court rules something constitutional, it is also constitutional and is law.... whether we like the decision or not. i'd suggest you read marbury v madison and actually understand the cases on the supremacy clause, commerce clause and general welfare clause, in particular. after that, you can go study due process, and equal protection.
then you can say, maybe, that you know something.... but you'd actually have to understand what you're reading.
p.s. you aren't smarter or know more than ruth bader ginzburg or any other liberal justice on the court.