Why is wanting to keep what you earned greed, but wanting what you didn't earn isn't?

[MikeK]

The real question is, "Why is government so greedy that they require so much in taxes?"

Incompetence, inefficiency and, mainly, corruption.

Why is government so large, that it takes so much to run it?

While some reductions in the size of the federal government are needed, mainly in the area of the Military Industrial Complex and the Pentagon, the fact remains this is a very large and complex Nation which requires a proportionally large and complex government to keep it running and prevent its coming apart.

How did government fund itself before the 16th Amendment?

Mainly from tariffs, excise taxes and various direct taxes which evolved over the years. If you're interested in learning more you can find the answers here: History of the US Tax System

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

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;

The power to collect taxes, raise money, etc... pretty self explanatory

To pay the debts and provide for the defense and general welfare OF THE UNITED STATES... the union... when the 'people' 'persons' or 'citizens' are meant in the constitution, those words are used.... this is to provide for the UNION...

next phrase after the semi colon... explains that it shall be equal...

then.. GET THIS.. MORE PUNCTUATION.. to SHOW the LIST of things that it is SPECIFICALLY supposed to be used for.... You notice things did not end with a FUCKING PERIOD.....

The list begins with the first thing mentioned after "Congress shall have the power". Each power is distinct and stands on its own. Including the first clause.




All you did was take the list of enumerated powers and remove the first one because you don't like it.

Game
Set
Match
Championship

That's nice you think that and all but your opinion carries no legal weight whatsoever. In our system, when a citizen disputes the meaning of the Constitution with the government, the courts settle the issue, not DiamondDave. Are you aware this is how it works?

I left out no enumerated power.. I started right from the top...

Actually you left out the first one. Its Article 8 Section 1 Clause 1. Its not in your list

As stated.. the judiciary unconstitutionally grabbed the power..

Really? Your entire argument is based on the opinion that a case from 1803 is not valid? LOL! Okay! So the courts are bound to uphold law even when it is unconstitutional? OKay!

the power comes from the states thru the vehicle of the constitution... it is not unlimited power and specific negations.. it is limited powers with an all encompassing negation... like a deny rule after specific allow rules in a firewall... The constitution is supposed to be our firewall... our power hungry government and government officials have punched holes in it relentlessly to weaken it

So.... the branch of government that is supposed to resolve disputes on what the Constitution says ... is ...you ?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

The court has no power to determine the Constitutionality of a law? lol! What civics class did you take that teaches this?


It is specifically enumerated in Article I Section 8 Clause 1.

You state the power is granted.. Just show the text that says so... it is NOT granted.. it is a power that the court took upon itself.. Against the powers granted

It is not specifically enumerated.. perhaps you should fucking realize that there are fucking things written after the fucking word WELFARE in article 1 section 8....

c'mon.. show us WHERE it is granted...

Article III - The Judicial Branch

Section 1 - Judicial powers

The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

Section 2 - Trial by Jury, Original Jurisdiction, Jury Trials

(The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.) (This section in parentheses is modified by the 11th Amendment.)

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

Section 3 - Treason Note

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

Amendment 5 - Trial and Punishment, Compensation for Takings. Ratified 12/15/1791.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment 6 - Right to Speedy Trial, Confrontation of Witnesses. Ratified 12/15/1791.

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Amendment 7 - Trial by Jury in Civil Cases. Ratified 12/15/1791.

In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Amendment 11 - Judicial Limits. Ratified 2/7/1795. Note History

The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.

If there is nothing in the Constitution giving anyone the power determine constitutionality of laws,

then constitutionality is rendered meaningless. In your world, a state could outlaw all gun ownership without fear of running afoul of the Constitution,

because in your world there is no authority to determine and thus void laws on the grounds of their being unconstitutional.

There is an authority thought, didn't you hear? DiamondDave! Whatever he says about the Constitution, the Congress must uphold it - and anyone who disagrees, well they just haven't read the Constitution.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Well OK then. The federal government isn'tdoing that. The federal government doesn't tax wealth - it taxes income. And no one is suggesting a federal property tax or any other such thing that would directly tax wealth. So what are you whining about exactly?

At least one I know of is suggesting the direct taxation of accumulated wealth. Me. I advocate IRS confiscation of all assets valued in excess of twenty million dollars.

But I know the majority of Americans will be outraged by that recommendation because they have been gradually but effectively indoctrinated into the cult of greed which has become the virtual religion of this once proud Nation. They won't give the concept a moment's thought but will react to it with programmed indignation.

Why 20 million? Why not 25 million? Why not 15 million? We can't peg down an exact number, so we can't do it. Who are you to say? Bwah bwahh bwahh boo hoo wa wa wa.



I don't think we should be taxing wealth per se. But there should be a 70% bracket starting at 5 million.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Corporate tax breaks above ACTUAL HARD COSTS of doing business are as a matter of fact a malignant form of welfare. Goodwill, buying carryforwards, etc.? All bogus.

Want evidence: which group is holding more welfare in savings: corporations -- estimated cash being held out of the economy, +/- $1.5kkkk; estimated cash being held out of the economy by the total of all pure welfare recipients in the United States: zero

Tax breaks are legal deductions from taxable income, and are no more welfare than the paycheck you get from your employer.

BOTH come at a cost to other taxpayers.

BOTH are forms of welfare.

END of the story.

Sorry, but every good rightie knows that if the government lets me keep more of my own money, that's not welfare.


MOst of the deductions and credits (in terms of dollar worth) that ordinary people get are for children. Childhoods are the #1 thing that our economy produces. We make a bunch of shitty ones and we're fucked as a nation. From age 18-35 I paid taxes and had no children so I had to pay a little more than other folks who made the same as me who had kids. That was fine with me. Now i have a kid. Its my turn to get a break. And now after I been payin' taxes for 19 years and finally have a kid, you're sayin' "Hey, remember how you paid a little more than other folks with your same income for almost two decades? Well fuck you, I just gotta outta high school and I know better than you! Fuck you, your extra contributions over the past couple decades, count for shit!" Well no sir, thanks, I'll be taking my child tax credits and deductions, and if you want them, then you can manufacture a childhood your fuckin' self.

 

[gallantwarrior]

Not wanting to contribute to the society that you benefit from is greed

The word "contribute" implies consent....It's taken from them by force, at gunpoint if necessary.

The concepts of "coercion" and "consent" are mutually exclusive.

You give that "consent" to your elected representatives. Those representatives have a Constitutional power to collect taxes for the greater good of the society

Describe what you consider "greater good of society", please?

 

[gallantwarrior]

I don't get it liberals, please explain

The second premise of the question is presumptive.

Wanting to retain (hoard) an excessive amount of money is greed (gluttony). Wanting to have an excessive amount of money to hoard is also greedy (gluttonous).

I consider twenty million dollars to be a reasonable amount of wealth. I consider more than twenty million to be excessive wealth, mainly because it represents the potential for extreme political corruption -- such as that which is destroying our political system.

You don't have a problem when the covetous greedily demand that someone else's "excessive wealth" be forcibly taken so that they can benefit from what they have not earned?

 

[NYcarbineer]

You state the power is granted.. Just show the text that says so... it is NOT granted.. it is a power that the court took upon itself.. Against the powers granted

It is not specifically enumerated.. perhaps you should fucking realize that there are fucking things written after the fucking word WELFARE in article 1 section 8....

c'mon.. show us WHERE it is granted...

Article III - The Judicial Branch

Section 1 - Judicial powers

The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

Section 2 - Trial by Jury, Original Jurisdiction, Jury Trials

(The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.) (This section in parentheses is modified by the 11th Amendment.)

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

Section 3 - Treason Note

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

Amendment 5 - Trial and Punishment, Compensation for Takings. Ratified 12/15/1791.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment 6 - Right to Speedy Trial, Confrontation of Witnesses. Ratified 12/15/1791.

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Amendment 7 - Trial by Jury in Civil Cases. Ratified 12/15/1791.

In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Amendment 11 - Judicial Limits. Ratified 2/7/1795. Note History

The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.

If there is nothing in the Constitution giving anyone the power determine constitutionality of laws,

then constitutionality is rendered meaningless. In your world, a state could outlaw all gun ownership without fear of running afoul of the Constitution,

because in your world there is no authority to determine and thus void laws on the grounds of their being unconstitutional.

There is an authority thought, didn't you hear? DiamondDave! Whatever he says about the Constitution, the Congress must uphold it - and anyone who disagrees, well they just haven't read the Constitution.

I'd like to know how Dave supposes that the Chicago ban on handguns could have been overturned as a violation of the 2nd amendment without the Supreme Court having the power of judicial review,

unfortunately this is the point where Dave routinely exits the conversation.

 

[bripat9643]

Not wanting to contribute to the society that you benefit from is greed

The word "contribute" implies consent....It's taken from them by force, at gunpoint if necessary.

The concepts of "coercion" and "consent" are mutually exclusive.

You give that "consent" to your elected representatives. Those representatives have a Constitutional power to collect taxes for the greater good of the society

Wrong. I never gave "consent" to my elected representative for anything.

 

[Geaux4it]

Why are those who work for a living penalized, and those who don't rewarded?

You're living in the wrong country if you consider taxes to be a penalty.

You should consider it a privilege to live in such a great country, but nope...you see it as being penalized. Perhaps it's time you looked for another country that has no taxation and is more to your liking.

No, maybe the leftist taxation nation needs to move to a country for which they are trying to make America become.

-Geaux

 

[Geaux4it]

I don't get it liberals, please explain

Not wanting to contribute to the society that you benefit from is greed

it's not about society. It's about what's best for me and my family. For that, the current direction of this country doesn't meet that criteria

Period.

-Geaux

 

[MikeK]

Why 20 million? Why not 25 million? Why not 15 million? We can't peg down an exact number, so we can't do it. Who are you to say? Bwah bwahh bwahh boo hoo wa wa wa.

Of course the $20 million figure is not carved in stone and is subject to review. I arrived at that figure because it is a sum which enables one to afford a comfortable, secure, healthy, and reasonably luxurious life minus the kind of extravagance which is typically associated with aristocracy and the ability to influence legislation.

I don't think we should be taxing wealth per se. But there should be a 70% bracket starting at 5 million.

I could ask who you are to suggest a 70% bracket, but I won't because it's a stupid question. I will ask why you don't think wealth should be subject to taxation. Do you not believe inequitable distribution of this Nation's wealth resources has damaged the social structure and has led to extreme corruption in government?

 

[kaz]

The word "contribute" implies consent....It's taken from them by force, at gunpoint if necessary.

The concepts of "coercion" and "consent" are mutually exclusive.

You give that "consent" to your elected representatives. Those representatives have a Constitutional power to collect taxes for the greater good of the society

Wrong. I never gave "consent" to my elected representative for anything.

Don't you like the circular argument, bripat? Majority vote is compelling because we gave "consent" to a majority vote. And how did we give consent? A majority vote!

 

[MikeK]

Sorry, but every good rightie knows that if the government lets me keep more of my own money, that's not welfare.

But does every good rightie know that the excess in your tax level exists to compensate for legitimized tax evasion by the One Percent? You pay to make up for what they don't pay.

Here is just one example of what I mean:

(Excerpt)

A new report finds that around the world the extremely wealthy have accumulated at least $21 trillion in secretive offshore accounts. That’s a sum equal to the gross domestic products of the United States and Japan added together. The number may sound unbelievable, but the study was conducted by James Henry, former chief economist at the consultancy McKinsey, an expert on tax havens and offshoring. It was commissioned by Tax Justice Network, a British activist group.

Super Rich Hide $21 Trillion Offshore, Study Says - Forbes

(Close)

What are your thoughts about that?

 

[MikeK]

You don't have a problem when the covetous greedily demand that someone else's "excessive wealth" be forcibly taken so that they can benefit from what they have not earned?

Let's begin with this question: How do you suppose one goes about "earning" fifty billion dollars?

Please answer that and we'll take it from there.

 

[MikeK]

I don't get it liberals, please explain

Not wanting to contribute to the society that you benefit from is greed

it's not about society. It's about what's best for me and my family. For that, the current direction of this country doesn't meet that criteria

Period.

-Geaux

Do you think you can do better? If not, then you have little choice but to identify what is wrong with American society and to think about what can be done to fix it.

So what are your thoughts along that line?

 

[boedicca]

You don't have a problem when the covetous greedily demand that someone else's "excessive wealth" be forcibly taken so that they can benefit from what they have not earned?

Let's begin with this question: How do you suppose one goes about "earning" fifty billion dollars?

Please answer that and we'll take it from there.

Most billionaires in the U.S. started businesses or invested in businesses.

Nobody was forced to buy their products.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Why is wanting to keep what you earned greed…

It isn’t, no one ever said it was.

You’re misrepresenting this issue, or are willfully ignorant, or both.

 

[Erand7899]

The court has no power to determine the Constitutionality of a law? lol! What civics class did you take that teaches this?


It is specifically enumerated in Article I Section 8 Clause 1.

You state the power is granted.. Just show the text that says so... it is NOT granted.. it is a power that the court took upon itself.. Against the powers granted

It is not specifically enumerated.. perhaps you should fucking realize that there are fucking things written after the fucking word WELFARE in article 1 section 8....

c'mon.. show us WHERE it is granted...

Article III - The Judicial Branch

Section 1 - Judicial powers

The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

Section 2 - Trial by Jury, Original Jurisdiction, Jury Trials

(The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.) (This section in parentheses is modified by the 11th Amendment.)

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

Section 3 - Treason Note

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

Amendment 5 - Trial and Punishment, Compensation for Takings. Ratified 12/15/1791.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment 6 - Right to Speedy Trial, Confrontation of Witnesses. Ratified 12/15/1791.

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Amendment 7 - Trial by Jury in Civil Cases. Ratified 12/15/1791.

In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Amendment 11 - Judicial Limits. Ratified 2/7/1795. Note History

The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.

If there is nothing in the Constitution giving anyone the power determine constitutionality of laws,

then constitutionality is rendered meaningless. In your world, a state could outlaw all gun ownership without fear of running afoul of the Constitution,

because in your world there is no authority to determine and thus void laws on the grounds of their being unconstitutional.

There is nothing in the US Constitution that gives anyone the power to declare a law passed by the congress and signed by the President to be unconstitutional. The Supreme Court assumed that power and it was not challenged by the other two branches of government.

BTW, until the fourteenth amendment was passed, the supreme court held that none of the rights delineated in the Bill of Rights were beholding on individual states. And, that is why we have localities that did restrict gun ownership.

 

[Erand7899]

You don't have a problem when the covetous greedily demand that someone else's "excessive wealth" be forcibly taken so that they can benefit from what they have not earned?

Let's begin with this question: How do you suppose one goes about "earning" fifty billion dollars?

Please answer that and we'll take it from there.

The exact same way someone "earns" any money. Someone "rents" out his/her labor, knowledge, skills, and/or capital, and that someone expects a reasonable "fee" for doing so. Some are stronger, smarter, more skilled, and/or have more capital to rent out, and they receive larger returns.

The question should be: Why does that bother you so much?

Is there a shortage of money that prevents you from receiving just compensation for your labor, knowledge, skills, and/or capital? Or, most likely, you are just envious of those rich bastards, with their fancy cars, and big houses.