mookie1995
there's a good buck in that racket.
Fed doesn't. That is something else.
USCHO Fan Forum
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.
The 2nd Term - Round 1 - Diving for Dollars
- Thread starter joecct
- Start date
- Status
FlagDUDE08
Banned
Re: The 2nd Term - Round 1 - Diving for Dollars
True, that's most municipal level, maybe some county or state added.
Has the estate tax been challenged in court yet for its constitutionality? I suppose the only thing that I could see is if the gift is considered income, and it would be protected under the 16th amendment.
True, that's most municipal level, maybe some county or state added.
Has the estate tax been challenged in court yet for its constitutionality? I suppose the only thing that I could see is if the gift is considered income, and it would be protected under the 16th amendment.
Last edited:
Doesn't the constitution give Congress the power to tax? Presumably they could tax a broad amount of things with only a few exceptions (poll taxes, for example).
Re: The 2nd Term - Round 1 - Diving for Dollars
ok... I guess I didn't realize that was your point. Of course it's culturally based, as it needs to be. We're in agreement. I thought you were advocating for the government to formulate some kind of a "scientific" measure of fairness a la various socialist dictators of history. Of course our freedoms are culturally based.
ok... I guess I didn't realize that was your point. Of course it's culturally based, as it needs to be. We're in agreement. I thought you were advocating for the government to formulate some kind of a "scientific" measure of fairness a la various socialist dictators of history. Of course our freedoms are culturally based.
FlagDUDE08
Banned
Re: The 2nd Term - Round 1 - Diving for Dollars
From what we learned in Pollock vs. Farmers' Loan & Trust, along with numerous other cases in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the tax must be in proportion to the census (I-9-4). Such indirect taxes were considered unconstitutional until the passing of the 16th amendment, when even then is only applied to income, from whatever source derived.
From what we learned in Pollock vs. Farmers' Loan & Trust, along with numerous other cases in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the tax must be in proportion to the census (I-9-4). Such indirect taxes were considered unconstitutional until the passing of the 16th amendment, when even then is only applied to income, from whatever source derived.
The Exiled One
New member
Re: The 2nd Term - Round 1 - Diving for Dollars
I don't want to debate specific policies based on this particular issue, but suffice it to say I'm relatively tolerant to shifting the cultural paradigm. At least then, if I were to argue for a specific policy, you'd know where I'm coming from. I'm tolerant to the disruption of cultural norms in the quest for new functional economic systems. Of course, I understand the flip side of that equation is a belief that cultural norms are the natural expression of functional economic systems, so I get where you are coming from as well.
Yup, we're cool.
I don't want to debate specific policies based on this particular issue, but suffice it to say I'm relatively tolerant to shifting the cultural paradigm. At least then, if I were to argue for a specific policy, you'd know where I'm coming from. I'm tolerant to the disruption of cultural norms in the quest for new functional economic systems. Of course, I understand the flip side of that equation is a belief that cultural norms are the natural expression of functional economic systems, so I get where you are coming from as well.
unofan
Well-known member
The current exemption is $5 million in 2011 dollars, adjusted for inflation. So stop pretending you're some sob story that will be driven to the poorhouse by the estate tax.
It should also be noted that the $5 million figure was derived at after lobbying by the national farmers union.
I'm also going to presume you've benefited from agriculture subsidies at some point, but I doubt you were complaining then.
Last edited:
Reminds me of a funny interview I heard before election day. Some dude was yapping about how hard it was to be a farmer in Wisconsin and how he resented working hard while other people get govt handouts. When asked if his farm received any subsidies, he blurted out "uhhh yeah but not a lot". Nothing like hearing from someone standing on principle! No wonder Romney lost....
Handyman
Hug someone you care about...
Re: The 2nd Term - Round 1 - Diving for Dollars
Well to be fair, living in Wisconsin is quite a punishment subsidies should be the least the Government does to make up for that torture
Well to be fair, living in Wisconsin is quite a punishment subsidies should be the least the Government does to make up for that torture
Re: The 2nd Term - Round 1 - Diving for Dollars
Always attack. Always argue tu quoque and ad hominem. Always change the subject.
It's always about Bush, isn't it? And even if what you say is true, my recollection is he was elected President of the United States, not the President of Texas. That means people from coast to coast had a chance to vote for or against him. Even people living in the People's Republic of Massachusetts. So how do you blame Texas for that?
Why do you assume that Reliant stadium was built with public funds (it my understanding there's a creative and complicated mixture of public and private money involved. Reliant Energy put up 300 mill for naming rights, the biggest deal of its kind ever. Texans owner Bob McNair put in 150 mill for stadium construction)? And if it was, how is that a rebuttal to my argument that Houston has a long history of thinking out of the box?
Always attack. Always argue tu quoque and ad hominem. Always change the subject.
It's always about Bush, isn't it? And even if what you say is true, my recollection is he was elected President of the United States, not the President of Texas. That means people from coast to coast had a chance to vote for or against him. Even people living in the People's Republic of Massachusetts. So how do you blame Texas for that?
Why do you assume that Reliant stadium was built with public funds (it my understanding there's a creative and complicated mixture of public and private money involved. Reliant Energy put up 300 mill for naming rights, the biggest deal of its kind ever. Texans owner Bob McNair put in 150 mill for stadium construction)? And if it was, how is that a rebuttal to my argument that Houston has a long history of thinking out of the box?
Last edited:
unofan
Well-known member
Re: The 2nd Term - Round 1 - Diving for Dollars
Houston also gave us Enron. So it's not all sunshine and lollipops down there, gramps.
Houston also gave us Enron. So it's not all sunshine and lollipops down there, gramps.
Re: The 2nd Term - Round 1 - Diving for Dollars
Interesting Colbert Report regarding states and locals refusing to enforce US law...such as gun control law. Long story short...not!
There are many precedents...including the civil war and Eisenhower sending troops into southern states that refused to enforce civil rights laws. Who makes the decisions on legitimacy? The supreme court. Who gives them that right? Themselves...oh and the Constitution. The Constitution makes itself the law of the land and the courts its method of interpretation.
So the net message is win the election, change the laws and change the courts...or you can always leave (you just better plan on leaving your state behind).
Interesting Colbert Report regarding states and locals refusing to enforce US law...such as gun control law. Long story short...not!
There are many precedents...including the civil war and Eisenhower sending troops into southern states that refused to enforce civil rights laws. Who makes the decisions on legitimacy? The supreme court. Who gives them that right? Themselves...oh and the Constitution. The Constitution makes itself the law of the land and the courts its method of interpretation.
So the net message is win the election, change the laws and change the courts...or you can always leave (you just better plan on leaving your state behind).
FadeToBlack&Gold
Microlot Marxist
Re: The 2nd Term - Round 1 - Diving for Dollars
Naw...actually it was put together jointly by a couple of guys with the handles J. Madison, T. Jefferson and J. Adams.
Kepler, is that you?
Naw...actually it was put together jointly by a couple of guys with the handles J. Madison, T. Jefferson and J. Adams.
Re: The 2nd Term - Round 1 - Diving for Dollars
The capital gains tax is a tax on assets except it is only assessed when someone reallocates. If your asset has increased in value since you bought it, and then you sell it, you are taxed but if your asset has increased in value and you don't sell it, you are not taxed. Capital gains are not "income" they are an increase in asset values.
The gift tax is a tax on assets that is assessed while a person is alive.
I assume you meant at the Federal level because lots of us have personal property taxes at the state and local level. We pay a tax on our automobiles every year, for example.
that is not quite clear; one generally has to work in order to save and then we tax interest earned on those savings. Also, we tax corporate income twice whenever it is distributed to shareholders, once through the corporate income tax and again through the personal income tax.
This last point is perverse, in the old-fashioned sense; it skews capital allocation toward debt and away from equity.
More broadly, if you tax anything you tend to get less of it (that old "supply and demand" thing...what happens when you raise the price of anything?), and so taxing incomes in a way is backward.
The capital gains tax is a tax on assets except it is only assessed when someone reallocates. If your asset has increased in value since you bought it, and then you sell it, you are taxed but if your asset has increased in value and you don't sell it, you are not taxed. Capital gains are not "income" they are an increase in asset values.
The gift tax is a tax on assets that is assessed while a person is alive.
I assume you meant at the Federal level because lots of us have personal property taxes at the state and local level. We pay a tax on our automobiles every year, for example.
that is not quite clear; one generally has to work in order to save and then we tax interest earned on those savings. Also, we tax corporate income twice whenever it is distributed to shareholders, once through the corporate income tax and again through the personal income tax.
This last point is perverse, in the old-fashioned sense; it skews capital allocation toward debt and away from equity.
More broadly, if you tax anything you tend to get less of it (that old "supply and demand" thing...what happens when you raise the price of anything?), and so taxing incomes in a way is backward.
Last edited:
Funny, because I can't find anybody who admits they voted for Bush. Its like the guy won two elections without a single supporter. Amazing.
I assume Houston's stadium is funded by taxpayers because both the Cowboys stadium and the Rangers stadium was. Would be odd for two other cities to get $$$ but one city to not get any. Seems like you're admitting it was funded by taxpayers, which is pretty odd for a conservative la-la land like Texas. Even when you consider liberal Mass said no to public funding of private stadiums.
PS - Did Houston dredge that river themselves to create a port 30 miles inland, or where there substantial federal dollars involved?
FlagDUDE08
Banned
Re: The 2nd Term - Round 1 - Diving for Dollars
New York State taxpayers were forced to pay for a stadium in New Jersey.
New York State taxpayers were forced to pay for a stadium in New Jersey.
Re: The 2nd Term - Round 1 - Diving for Dollars
Always attack. Always argue tu quoque and ad hominem. Always change the subject.
Always attack. Always argue tu quoque and ad hominem. Always change the subject.
- Status