Economy
See other Economy Articles
Title: So How Did the Bush Tax Cuts Work Out for the Economy?
Source:
[None]
URL Source: http://www.tax.com/taxcom/taxblog.n ... alink/CHAS-89LPZ9?OpenDocument
Published: Sep 25, 2010
Author: David Cay Johnston
Post Date: 2010-09-25 13:13:21 by Skip Intro
Keywords: None
Views: 145915
Comments: 184
The 2008 income tax data are now in, so we can assess the fulfillment of the Republican promise that tax cuts would produce widespread prosperity by looking at all the years of the George W. Bush presidency. Just as they did in 2000, the Republicans are running this year on an economic platform of tax cuts, especially making the tax cuts permanent for the richest among us. So how did the tax cuts work out? My analysis of the new data, with all figures in 2008 dollars: Total income was $2.74 trillion less during the eight Bush years than if incomes had stayed at 2000 levels. That much additional income would have more than made up for the lack of demand that keeps us mired in the Great Recession. That would mean no need for a stimulus, although it would not have affected the last administration's interfering with market capitalism by bailing out irresponsible Wall Streeters instead of letting the market determine their fortunes. In only two years was total income up, but even when those years are combined they exceed the declines in only one of the other six years. Even if we limit the analysis by starting in 2003, when the dividend and capital gains tax cuts began, through the peak year of 2007, the result is still less income than at the 2000 level. Total income was down $951 billion during those four years. Average incomes fell. Average taxpayer income was down $3,512, or 5.7 percent, in 2008 compared with 2000, President Bush's own benchmark year for his promises of prosperity through tax cuts. Had incomes stayed at 2000 levels, the average taxpayer would have earned almost $21,000 more over those eight years. That's almost $50 per week. The changes in average and total incomes are detailed on the next page in Table 1, the first of four tables analyzing the whole data. Now that we have looked at the whole eight-year period, what does the new data show about 2008, the worst recession ear since the 1930s, show when compared to the peak year of 2007, when the average taxpayer made $63,096, which was 2.5 percent more than in 2000. In only two of the eight Bush years, 2006 and 2007, were average incomes higher than in 2000, but the gains were highly concentrated at the top. Of the total increase in income in 2007 over that in 2005, nearly 30 percent went to taxpayers who made $1 million or more. Now surely some will say that it is not fair to saddle George W. Bush and those who supported his tax cuts with the economic figures from 2001 and 2008. The first would be on the theory that President Clinton should be charged for that year (just as Bush should be charged with 2009, the first year of the Obama administration). The second is on less solid ground, but let's consider it for the sake of argument. Just measuring the second through seventh years we find that total income was still nearly $2 trillion lower than if 2000 level income continued. Stacking the deck in President George W. Bush's favor does not change the awful performance or even soften it much. The tax cuts cost $1.8 trillion in the first eight years, according to an analysis by the Tax Policy Center, whose reliability the last administration went out of its way to praise. Those cuts were heavily weighted toward the people candidate George W. Bush famously called "haves and the have-mores . . . some people call you the elite. I call you my base." In the two years since 2008, the cuts' total cost grew to $2.3 trillion, the Tax Policy Center estimated. One of every eight dollars of the tax cuts went to the 1 in 1,000 taxpayers in the top tenth of 1 percent, the annual threshold for which was in the $2 million range throughout the last administration. The only other large beneficiary was parents with children under 17 who make enough to pay income taxes, thanks to the $1,000-per-child tax credit Republicans started championing in the mid-1990s. Now let's look at wages, the source of most people's income. In 2008 the average taxpayer made $58,000. That was $5,100 less than in 2007, a decline of 8.1 percent. The number of taxpayers reporting any wages in 2008 was 1.26 million fewer than in 2007, a scary figure when you consider that most people do not expect to be out of work for an entire year and that the population grew by more than a percentage point. In August 42 percent of the unemployed -- 6.2 million people -- had been out of work for 27 weeks or more, the Bureau of Labor Statistics said. The average for all jobless workers was 33.6 weeks of unemployment, the equivalent of going from New Year's Day through August 23 without a paycheck. The number of taxpayers with incomes below $100,000 with any wage income fell in 2008 by 1.8 million. Because married couples file many tax returns, this means more than 2 million people who worked in 2007 earned no wages in 2008. Total wages in 2008 fell by nearly 4 percent, compared with a year earlier, for the 87 percent of Americans whose total income was less than $100,000. Since 2000, population grew more than wages. Those reporting negative incomes quadrupled from less than 600,000 in 2000 to nearly 2.5 million in 2008. Their losses worsened slightly from -$64,000 on average to -$66,000. The number of workers earning $500,000 or more in total income also fell, by just under 100,000 (or nearly 12 percent), but their average wage of $718,000 is still more than the average American earns in a decade at 2008 levels. The number of people reporting incomes of $200,000 or more but legally paying no federal income taxes skyrocketed in the second Bush term. A decade ago it was fewer than 1,500 taxpayers; in 2000 it was about 2,300. This high-income, tax-free group jumped to more than 11,000 in 2007 and then doubled in 2008 to more than 22,000. In 2008 nearly 1 in every 200 high-income taxpayers paid no federal income tax, up from about 1 in 1,500 in 1998. The share of high incomes that were untaxed increased more than sevenfold to one dollar of every $166. The Statistics of Income data on tax-free, high incomes severely understate economic reality because they exclude deferral accounts, including those of hedge fund managers with billion-dollar incomes who can legally report no current income and borrow against their untaxed gains to live tax free. Table 1. 2008 Average Incomes Fell Well Below 2000 Level The one bright spot in the SOI data at Table 1.4 was that the number of people making $100,000 to $200,000 grew significantly between 2007 and 2008. Their ranks increased by 393,465, or 3 percent, to more than 13.8 million taxpayers. This truly is good news, because most of the increase had to be people who worked their way up into six-figure incomes from 2007 to 2008. We know this because fewer than 160,000 taxpayers fell out of the $200,000-and-up income groups. Even if we assume that every one of them fell into the $100,000-$200,000 class, that still leaves 233,000 taxpayers who joined this income group. These 233,000 taxpayers must be people who increased their incomes enough to get them above the $100,000 line. And we know that they did it mostly through becoming more valuable workers, because this group relies on paychecks for more than 77 percent of its income. But despite that one sliver of good news about low six-figure incomes, the data show overwhelmingly that the Republican-sponsored tax cuts damaged our nation. Examining performance against the promises, what do we find? Overwhelming evidence that the tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 made us much worse off. Table 2. More Taxpayers, Less Revenue Ignore the cynics who say the Republican leaders on Capitol Hill, in Wasilla, and on the airwaves care only about the rich. I don't believe that. I think they are captive to economic theories few of them understand and that are simplistic in the extreme. I take them at their word, that they truly believe their policies will produce broad benefits for all, but accepting that does not diminish the fact that the policies these Republicans promote also produce massive tax savings for the superrich who finance their campaigns. The question to ask is whether their policies worked as promised. Have they even come close? Where is the prosperity -- and where was it in the Bush years, when massive increases in both military and discretionary spending provided a chronic stimulus to the economy? Table 3. 2007 to 2008: Fewer Jobs, Less Money (Mostly) The hard, empirical facts: The tax cuts did not spur investment. Job growth in the George W. Bush years was one-seventh that of the Clinton years. Nixon and Ford did better than Bush on jobs. Wages fell during the last administration. Average incomes fell. The number of Americans in poverty, as officially measured, hit a 16-year high last year of 43.6 million, though a National Academy of Sciences study says that the real poverty figure is closer to 51 million. Food banks are swamped. Foreclosure signs are everywhere. Americans and their governments are drowning in debt. And at the nexus of tax and healthcare, Republican ideas perpetuate a cruel and immoral system that rations healthcare -- while consuming every sixth dollar in the economy and making businesses, especially small businesses, less efficient and less profitable. This is economic madness. It is policy divorced from empirical evidence. It is insanity because the policies are illusory and delusional. The evidence is in, and it shows beyond a shadow of a reasonable doubt that the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts failed to achieve the promised goals. So why in the world is anyone giving any credence to the insistence by Republican leaders that tax cuts, more tax cuts, and deeper tax cuts are the remedy to our economic woes? Why are they not laughingstocks? It is one thing for Fox News to treat these policies as successful, but what of the rest of what Sarah Palin calls with some justification the "lamestream media," who treat these policies as worthy ideas? The Republican leadership is like the doctors who believed bleeding cured the sick. When physicians bled George Washington, he got worse, so they increased the treatment until they bled him to death. Our government, the basis of our freedoms, is spewing red ink, and the Republican solution is to spill ever more. Those who ignore evidence and pledge blind faith in policy based on ideological fantasy are little different from the clerics who made Galileo Galilei confess that the sun revolves around the earth. The Capitol Hill and media Republicans differ only in not threatening death to those who deny their dogma. How much more evidence do we need that we made terrible and costly mistakes in 2001 and 2003? Figure 1. High-Income Paying Zero Tax 1998-2008 The number of individual income tax returns showing adjusted gross income of $200,000 or more, but no income tax liability, has been rising rapidly in recent years. Table 4. 2008: Fewer Jobs, Lower Pay (With Exceptions in Bold)
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Skip Intro (#0)
It let people who earned money keep more of the money they earned. No one but a communist would think that the government taking more money out of the economy is good. Are you a communist?
Do you think that is anything close to intelligent conversation? Got to fund those wars you guys support so much.
Got to fund those wars you guys support so much. He'll tell you he's not supportive of the wars but his behaviors tell a different story. He rarely, if ever, bans, threatens to ban or indulges in name calling with any of the war mongers here.
The question was reasonable considering the content of your posts.
Name some and post some examples of why you believe they are what you claim, whinigskag.
Another lefty. No surprise. http://davidcayjohnstonwatch.b logspot.com/ David Cay Johnston is a [former] New York Times' reporter on tax issues. He misrepresents his educational credentials -- which are virtually non-existent -- and is not a fair or neutral reporter. This is where we debunk his misleading and slanted reporting.
Do you smoke crack? You must if you think I ever supported any of these new world order wars.
Notice how Skip spends his time attacking Bush, who has been out of office for nearly two years now, and doesn't condem Obama who has bankrupted the nation????
Clinton and Cuomo are the true bandits who lit the fuse to this economic crisis we're now in. All in the name of getting more minorities in houses: http://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=12554
Yep. Just like war. And mininggold. But they're "Independents." NOT Dem-Rats :-)
I'm sorry, I lumped you in with all conservatives. Still doesn't mean your communist insult isn't retarded.
Commies/socialists/progressives are all about taking money out of the economy so they can control us. The less money the govt takes the more free we are. Money they take out of the economy makes us poorer. People who earn the money should be able to keep it.
Oh also. It is ok you lumped me in. It is hard to keep track of everyone's positions.
The less money the govt takes the more free we are. Money they take out of the economy makes us poorer. People who earn the money should be able to keep it. They money is taken when it is spent. Mainstream conservatives will fight tooth and nail on taxes, but have absolutely no problem with massive government spending. That money will be taken from our economy, now or later. Funding government is necessary, and the income tax is constitutional. The budget needs to be balanced, or at least more balanced. And tax cuts are not helping. Your argument might make some sense of the budget was balanced and democrats wanted to take more money for no reason. But taking money from the private sector to pay for government spending is in no way communist.
Govt revenue increased after the tax cuts. Probably more then 80 percent of what govt spends on is unconstitutional.
Govt revenue climes because the economy climes. It would have climbed more without the tax cuts. I concede there is a point at which tax cuts do increase revenue. But not at 40% of the top marginal tax rate.
40 percent is way to much. Taxes should be about 10 percent tops. That is more then enough money for them to waste. Also it is impossible to pay the debt back. It is a fraud. The kids of today don't owe it and should refuse to pay it. It isn't their debt. It is a bunch of elitest assholes debts. And dead peoples debts. Cancel it, it is bullshit. Congress doesn't have the authority to spend beyond their term and cripple future generations.
Bush borrowed money from the Communists to pay for tax cuts to the top 1%, and then rather than invest all that tax savings back into the USA the way Bush said they would to stimulate the economy, them rich guys created more jobs for the Communists in China. Who iis the Communist here?
Also it is impossible to pay the debt back. It is a fraud. The kids of today don't owe it and should refuse to pay it. It isn't their debt. It is a bunch of elitest assholes debts. And dead peoples debts. Cancel it, it is bullshit. Congress doesn't have the authority to spend beyond their term and cripple future generations. I'm not saying 40% is a fair rate, I'm just saying a 40% tax rate is high enough to start hurting tax revenue. Unfortunately Congress does have the authority to create debt. Ignoring that debt isn't a reasonable option.
Also the Capital Gains tax should be exactly what the same tax on earned income is. Why is it okay to tax someone for working at a higher rate for someone doing nothing.
You should look up Arther Laffer.
The current members of the "You're a worthless sack of shit" list includes WAR, calcon, e_type_jack-off, mad-dog (more like rabidly stupid), ibluafartsky and the fascism-shill no gnu taxes (aka 400 bucks, happyfunball, 50yardline, etc, etc.) If you're on the list, don't bother writing, 'cause you're a waste of flesh.
Right. His current plan for restoring economic health is to suspend ALL federal tax collection for a year and a half.
I agree!
I would argue that they are elected for two years and they acted unconstitutionally. I would print blue money to pay foreigners back. That money would be honored for purchases of American goods and services only if it was redeemed by the entity that was originally given the money. In other words they would be like a coupon redeemable in America only by whoever it was that got the blue money. If they don't like it screw them. Paying back imaginary debt is worse then defaulting on it. America first second thrid fourth fifth sixth seventh eighth ninth tenth eleventh and then maybe we will consider another countries interests.
I agree! How about this idea. Get rid of all income tax. Only tax corporations. They say corporations don't pay taxes anyway. Then they can shift the burden back to the people.
You're the biggest pussy on the internet.
them rich guys Who iis the Communist here? Get your nose out of the bottle lucysmom.
Bush borrowed money from Cuba and North Korea??? They are the only communist countries left. The Castro brothers finally announced that their policies don't work so they are laying off 500,000 government bureaucrats and implementing reforms to entice entrepreneurs (BUSINESS PEOPLE). I wish U.S. politicians had the cajones to make 500,000 bureaucrats available to the market. That would truely be magnificent. But of course, you were talking about China. I've been to China a few times. China is MUCH more capitalistic than than U.S.
You should look up Arther Laffer. The laffer curve is somewhat bullshit. There is a point at which too high of a tax rate actually reduces government spending. However 35% top marginal is on the low side of the laffer curve. The laffer curve also has no empirical support, which makes it meaningless to use. It's a wild guess that somewhat approximates reality.
I would argue that they are elected for two years and they acted unconstitutionally. I would print blue money to pay foreigners back. That money would be honored for purchases of American goods and services only if it was redeemed by the entity that was originally given the money. In other words they would be like a coupon redeemable in America only by whoever it was that got the blue money. If they don't like it screw them. Paying back imaginary debt is worse then defaulting on it. America first second thrid fourth fifth sixth seventh eighth ninth tenth eleventh and then maybe we will consider another countries interests. Those foreigners bought those bonds, it isn't their fault our government is a spending whore. Our unimpeachable record on paying back debts is a massive national asset. It's why the US isn't Greece right now.
Oh - well - its ok then.
No, it's no okay but Obama is borrowing much more money than Bush. Bush was horrible. Obama is worse. They both suck. That's the bottom line.
Actually I think Bush is the worser of the two - he chose to borrow rather than pay down the debt - Obama really didn't have a choice.
LOL So the $800 BILLION "stimulus" was forced on Obama from above? NO. He chose to do this to PAY OFF political dues to his government union buddies who helped elect him. Everyone knows this. This is why the Democrats will rightfully go down in flames in November in spite of the GOP's ineptitude. God help us all.
Laffer is an idiot. He was adamant in 2006 that the economy wasn't in trouble and Schiff schooled him hard. Laffer lost all credibility with me when he missed the collapse.
Clinton and Cuomo are the true bandits who lit the fuse to this economic crisis we're now in. All in the name of getting more minorities in houses: http://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=12554
Man are you ignorant of basic economics. Obama's "Stimulus" is far worse than anything Bush did.
Clinton and Cuomo are the true bandits who lit the fuse to this economic crisis we're now in. All in the name of getting more minorities in houses: http://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=12554
Are you drunk or just plain stupid?
Worse than the war Bush lied us into. Linda Bilmes, senior lecturer in public policy at the Harvard Kennedy School and co-author of the Three Trillion Dollar War, argues that official government estimates of the war’s costs are too low because they do not take into account costs such as higher combat pay and recruiting costs, Social Security disability payments for veterans who can no longer work, the cost of restoring the military to its pre-war strength (replacing the bullets and bombs that have been used). She and Joseph Stiglitz, a Nobel-prize winning economist at Columbia University, argue that the "true" cost of Iraq will be several trillion dollars. Worse, I suppose than the lives lost or human beings disabled for life. We also should note that the $814 billion cost for the stimulus includes $70 billion to fix a problem with the Alternative Minimum Tax, which is designed to target the wealthiest taxpayers but is gradually affecting more people in the middle class. Yep, that's pretty bad.
Considering it earned him the Nobel Prize- back when it *meant* something- I think you'll find that a hard sell. Of course, it is also founded on common sense. Arguing against the Laffer curve, doesn't touch the cred of Laffer, but it certainly reflects on you.
The current members of the "You're a worthless sack of shit" list includes WAR, calcon, e_type_jack-off, mad-dog (more like rabidly stupid), ibluafartsky and the fascism-shill no gnu taxes (aka 400 bucks, happyfunball, 50yardline, etc, etc.) If you're on the list, don't bother writing, 'cause you're a waste of flesh.
He was adamant in 2006 that the economy wasn't in trouble and Schiff schooled him hard. Laffer lost all credibility with me when he missed the collapse. He's an academic- best suited to sitting in a University and analyzing theoretical models. I agree he was pretty-well smacked down by Schiff. But that does not change the validity of the Laffer Curve, which has stood the test of time, and is a foundational piece of both modern and Austrian economics (though I don't recall the latter qualifying it with such a curve).
The current members of the "You're a worthless sack of shit" list includes WAR, calcon, e_type_jack-off, mad-dog (more like rabidly stupid), ibluafartsky and the fascism-shill no gnu taxes (aka 400 bucks, happyfunball, 50yardline, etc, etc.) If you're on the list, don't bother writing, 'cause you're a waste of flesh.
That's a very good idea. STARVE 'em...! Please provide an empirical argument to counter his position...
The current members of the "You're a worthless sack of shit" list includes WAR, calcon, e_type_jack-off, mad-dog (more like rabidly stupid), ibluafartsky and the fascism-shill no gnu taxes (aka 400 bucks, happyfunball, 50yardline, etc, etc.) If you're on the list, don't bother writing, 'cause you're a waste of flesh.
Just like Communism, "STARVE 'em...", is another plan that doesn't work in real life. Bush's tax cuts for instance, reduced tax collections by $2.4 trillion. California's prop 13 was "going to starve the beast" and look at where we are now.
Just like Communism, "STARVE 'em...", is another plan that doesn't work in real life... My reply assumed that you wish this country and countrymen well. It didn't occur to me that you might have a different goal until after hitting the post button. If that's the case then of course "STARVE 'em" might just be a very good idea from your perspective.
China has got the freedom for money thing down and falls short in the freedom for people category. Strictly speaking, China's economy is more Capitalist than Communist. Capitalism gets along just fine with totalitarian governments.
Considering it earned him the Nobel Prize- back when it *meant* something- I think you'll find that a hard sell. Of course, it is also founded on common sense. Arguing against the Laffer curve, doesn't touch the cred of Laffer, but it certainly reflects on you. First of not even the laffer curve says that cutting taxes always increases revenue. There is a rate at which tax cuts lose revenue. There is a large argument for what that rate is. However, Laffer never won the Nobel Prize, I don't know where you got that. Nobody won the Nobel prize for working on the Laffer Curve. Supply Side economics has no empirical basis. Plenty of economists, including Nobel winners, dismiss it.
I stand corrected. Obviously, I remember incorrectly. Of course. Which, of course, the Laffer curve perfectly illustrates. What's your point? LOL.
The current members of the "You're a worthless sack of shit" list includes WAR, calcon, e_type_jack-off, mad-dog (more like rabidly stupid), ibluafartsky and the fascism-shill no gnu taxes (aka 400 bucks, happyfunball, 50yardline, etc, etc.) If you're on the list, don't bother writing, 'cause you're a waste of flesh.
The current members of the "You're a worthless sack of shit" list includes WAR, calcon, e_type_jack-off, mad-dog (more like rabidly stupid), ibluafartsky and the fascism-shill no gnu taxes (aka 400 bucks, happyfunball, 50yardline, etc, etc.) If you're on the list, don't bother writing, 'cause you're a waste of flesh.
You need to get it through your empty skull, that the government is broke. They're like a parasite, that has sucked so much life out of the host, that the host is now dying... (the host, BTW, is us) As we, the hosts, lose energy, and our lives fade, the parasite gets less nourishment, and starts to suck harder, to keep itself fat and happy, with no regard to the fact that the host is now critical. The only way we- the hosts- will survive, is to cast off, or BURN off, the parasites. They will starve and die; we will survive. It's them or us. I choose to make them starve, so we can possibly survive. What's your choice?
The current members of the "You're a worthless sack of shit" list includes WAR, calcon, e_type_jack-off, mad-dog (more like rabidly stupid), ibluafartsky and the fascism-shill no gnu taxes (aka 400 bucks, happyfunball, 50yardline, etc, etc.) If you're on the list, don't bother writing, 'cause you're a waste of flesh.
That saying tax cuts increase revenue without stating a reason to think we are above the revenue maximizing rate is silly. In all likelihood we are below the maximizing rate. The Bush tax cuts showed no increase in revenue, only drops. It's very likely tax increases will increase revenue. Supply side is a relic of the 1980's. Most economists don't agree with it. Austrian Economics is a relic of a past century. Empiricism FTW.
You need to get it through your empty skull, that the government is broke. They're like a parasite, that has sucked so much life out of the host, that the host is now dying... (the host, BTW, is us) The government is broke. Which is why we need higher tax rates. They should be raised slowly over time as to not shock the economy. But when the economy recovers so the tax rates should continue to climb.
You're a good little socialist, rhino.
You're a good little socialist, rhino. You can't support spending like a socialist, and then call me a socialist for trying to pay for it. You'll pretend you didn't support spending, but the republican parties history is undeniable.
Let me dictate and you'll see spending and waste cut to the bone, socialist.
Let me dictate and you'll see spending and waste cut to the bone, socialist. Irrelevant if you support people who don't.
I don't support people like your socialist Illinois US Senators and Obama.
I don't support people like your socialist Illinois US Senators and Obama. You supported Bush who signed massive budgets into law.
I did? Please provide links or admit you're just blowing socialist smoke again.
www.libertypost.org
That's the best you can do, socialist bullshitter? You expect to be taken seriously?
... The only way we- the hosts- will survive, is to cast off, or BURN off, the parasites. They will starve and die; we will survive. It's them or us. I choose to make them starve, so we can possibly survive. What's your choice? Government actually does provide services for its citizens - the relationship is not parasitic but rather symbiotic. Destroy what you call the parasites and you could well destroy the host too.
There is a glaring, fatal flaw in your position: the economy has been steadily declining, as manufacturing capabilities have been off-shored over the last 10+ years, in accordance with alphabet-soup list of trade pacts (all in the name of "globalization," don't'cha know...). The GDP #'s have been significantly distorted, to *not* reflect this, due to the bubble-economies of Greenspan and (now) Bernanke. Without their easy-money policies, you'd have seen a huge drop in GDP, and also seen higher revenues (as a percentage of REAL GDP). Wishful thinking on your part. Austrian Economics predicted our situation perfectly. Keynesianism is DEAD. Live with it or not- I really don't give a shit... your arguments remind me of Jim Cramar, of "Mad Money.". Great sound and fury, signifying nothing. You chose your name well.
The current members of the "You're a worthless sack of shit" list includes WAR, calcon, e_type_jack-off, mad-dog (more like rabidly stupid), ibluafartsky and the fascism-shill no gnu taxes (aka 400 bucks, happyfunball, 50yardline, etc, etc.) If you're on the list, don't bother writing, 'cause you're a waste of flesh.
There is a glaring, fatal flaw in your position: the economy has been steadily declining, as manufacturing capabilities have been off-shored over the last 10+ years, in accordance with alphabet-soup list of trade pacts (all in the name of "globalization," don't'cha know...). The GDP #'s have been significantly distorted, to *not* reflect this, due to the bubble-economies of Greenspan and (now) Bernanke. Without their easy-money policies, you'd have seen a huge drop in GDP, and also seen higher revenues (as a percentage of REAL GDP). And none of that had anything to do with tax policy. You should read your posts. Austrian economics is dead, has been for a long time. Anyone school that doesn't embrace empiricism is a joke.
And your basis for this opinion is... What? As an economist trained (or should I say indoctrinated?) on Keynes, I had to find Mises on my own. I know better. Clearly, you don't. If you actually mattered, I'd put forth some modicum of effort to refute your claims. But you don't. Like Nebbie, you know just enough to be dangerous. And you're just as boring.
The current members of the "You're a worthless sack of shit" list includes WAR, calcon, e_type_jack-off, mad-dog (more like rabidly stupid), ibluafartsky and the fascism-shill no gnu taxes (aka 400 bucks, happyfunball, 50yardline, etc, etc.) If you're on the list, don't bother writing, 'cause you're a waste of flesh.
It makes sense, if you understand macroecon. Thanks for proving my point. LOL.
The current members of the "You're a worthless sack of shit" list includes WAR, calcon, e_type_jack-off, mad-dog (more like rabidly stupid), ibluafartsky and the fascism-shill no gnu taxes (aka 400 bucks, happyfunball, 50yardline, etc, etc.) If you're on the list, don't bother writing, 'cause you're a waste of flesh.
The government plays "Robin Hood." It takes money from those that work, and gives it to those that won't. The government motto: "From each according to abilities, to each according to his needs." Of course, that is straight Karl Marx. PROVE me wrong.
The current members of the "You're a worthless sack of shit" list includes WAR, calcon, e_type_jack-off, mad-dog (more like rabidly stupid), ibluafartsky and the fascism-shill no gnu taxes (aka 400 bucks, happyfunball, 50yardline, etc, etc.) If you're on the list, don't bother writing, 'cause you're a waste of flesh.
In fact, most of the money it takes is from those who work and given to people who do work under government cpontracts or who hold the debt. Prove ME wrong.
Does the part of your brain that holds the above statement to be true communicate with the part of your brain that notes employment rates correlate with the health of the economy? Do you ever wonder why more people "won't" work at this particular point in time than in April 2001? Repeat a lie often enough and people begin to accept it as truth. The government motto: "From each according to abilities, to each according to his needs." Of course, that is straight Karl Marx. Sounds Biblical to me: There was no needy person among them, for those who owned property or houses would sell them, bring the proceeds of the sale, and put them at the feet of the apostles, and they were distributed to each according to need. That's straight from the Book of Acts.
Why aren't capital gains taxed at the same rate as income from work?
Because it's "risk" money serving an economic good.
Seems risk money has become very risk adverse.
Yep.
Nonsensical question. The government actively interferes in the market, at ALL levels. They do this through taxation. Now, with the actual TOTAL tax rate at something like 60%, the natural result is low productivity, low manufacturing, high unemployment and high debt. Sounds Biblical to me... You're an idiot. From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia From each according to his ability, to each according to his need (or needs) is a slogan popularized by Karl Marx in his 1875 Critique of the Gotha Program.[1] The phrase summarizes the principles that, under a communist system, every person should contribute to society to the best of his or her ability and consume from society in proportion to his or her needs. In the Marxist view, such an arrangement will be made possible by the abundance of goods and services that a developed communist society will produce; the idea is that there will be enough to satisfy everyone's needs.[2][3] Copied from http://www.criminalgovernment.com/docs/planks.html TEN PLANKS OF THE COMMUNIST MANIFESTO Could this be happening in America? If so, how? Our "elected representatives" have passed laws implementing these anti-freedom concepts. The communists have achieved a de facto FEDERAL SOCIALIST GOVERNMENT in America. In 1848 Karl Marx and Frederick Engels wrote a book outlining a political ideology, titled "The Communist Manifesto". Marxism's basic theme is that the proletariat (the "exploited" working class of a capitalistic society) will suffer from alienation and will rise up against the "bourgeoisie" (the middle class) and overthrow the system of "capitalism." After a brief period of rule by "the dictatorship of the proletariat" the classless society of communism would emerge. In his Manifesto Marx described the following ten steps as necessary steps to be taken to destroy a free enterprise society!! Notice how many of these conditions, foreign to the principles that America was founded upon, have now, in 1997, been realized by the concerted efforts of socialist activists? Remember, government interference in your daily life and business is intrusion and deprivation of our liberties! First Plank: Abolition of property in land and the application of all rents of land to public purposes. (Zoning - Model ordinances proposed by Secretary of Commerce Herbert Hoover widely adopted. Supreme Court ruled "zoning" to be "constitutional" in 1921. Private owners of property required to get permission from government relative to the use of their property. Federally owned lands are leased for grazing, mining, timber usages, the fees being paid into the U.S. Treasury.) Second Plank: A heavy progressive or graduated incometax. (Corporate Tax Act of 1909. The 16th Amendment, allegedly ratified in 1913. The Revenue Act of 1913, section 2, Income Tax. These laws have been purposely misapplied against American citizens to this day.) Third Plank: Abolition of all rights of inheritance. (Partially accomplished by enactment of various state and federal "estate tax" laws taxing the "privilege" of transfering property after death and gift before death.) Fourth Plank: CONFISCATION OF THE PROPERTY OF ALL EMIGRANTS AND REBELS. (The confiscation of property and persecution of those critical - "rebels" - of government policies and actions, frequently accomplished by prosecuting them in a courtroom drama on charges of violations of non-existing administrative or regulatory laws.) Fifth Plank: Centralization of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly. (The Federal Reserve Bank, 1913- -the system of privately-owned Federal Reserve banks which maintain a monopoly on the valueless debt "money" in circulation.) Sixth Plank: Centralization of the means of communications and transportation in the hands of the State. (Federal Radio Commission, 1927; Federal Communications Commission, 1934; Air Commerce Act of 1926; Civil Aeronautics Act of 1938; Federal Aviation Agency, 1958; becoming part of the Department of Transportation in 1966; Federal Highway Act of 1916 (federal funds made available to States for highway construction); Interstate Highway System, 1944 (funding began 1956); Interstate Commerce Commission given authority by Congress to regulate trucking and carriers on inland waterways, 1935-40; Department of Transportation, 1966.) Seventh Plank: Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State, the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan. (Depart-ment of Agriculture, 1862; Agriculture Adjustment Act of 1933 -- farmers will receive government aid if and only if they relinquish control of farming activities; Tennessee Valley Authority, 1933 with the Hoover Dam completed in 1936.) Eighth Plank: Equal liability of all to labor. Establishment of industrial armies especially for agriculture. (First labor unions, known as federations, appeared in 1820. National Labor Union established 1866. American Federation of Labor established 1886. Interstate Commerce Act of 1887 placed railways under federal regulation. Department of Labor, 1913. Labor-management negotiations sanctioned under Railway Labor Act of 1926. Civil Works Administration, 1933. National Labor Relations Act of 1935, stated purpose to free inter-state commerce from disruptive strikes by eliminating the cause of the strike. Works Progress Administration 1935. Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, mandated 40- hour work week and time-and-a-half for overtime, set "minimum wage" scale. Civil Rights Act of 1964, effectively the equal liability of all to labor.) Ninth Plank: Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries, gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equitable distribution of population over the country. (Food processing companies, with the co-operation of the Farmers Home Administration foreclosures, are buying up farms and creating "conglomerates.") Tenth Plank: Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production. (Gradual shift from private education to publicly funded began in the Northern States, early 1800's. 1887: federal money (unconstitutionally) began funding specialized education. Smith-Lever Act of 1914, vocational education; Smith-Hughes Act of 1917 and other relief acts of the 1930's. Federal school lunch program of 1935; National School Lunch Act of 1946. National Defense Education Act of 1958, a reaction to Russia's Sputnik satellite demonstration, provided grants to education's specialties. Federal school aid law passed, 1965, greatly enlarged federal role in education, "head- start" programs, textbooks, library books.
The current members of the "You're a worthless sack of shit" list includes WAR, calcon, e_type_jack-off, mad-dog (more like rabidly stupid), ibluafartsky and the fascism-shill no gnu taxes (aka 400 bucks, happyfunball, 50yardline, etc, etc.) If you're on the list, don't bother writing, 'cause you're a waste of flesh.
Please provide the definition of "income," as established by SCOTUS, over 100 years ago. Please provide the specific law that says the money we earn from work (aka wages or salaries) are considered "income."
The current members of the "You're a worthless sack of shit" list includes WAR, calcon, e_type_jack-off, mad-dog (more like rabidly stupid), ibluafartsky and the fascism-shill no gnu taxes (aka 400 bucks, happyfunball, 50yardline, etc, etc.) If you're on the list, don't bother writing, 'cause you're a waste of flesh.
26 U.S.C. § 61 You're welcome. Also...to a lesser extend under Titile 42 § 409 as it gives examples of when wages can be exluded or must be included for the purpose of reporting "gross income" on your tax return.
Ha ha If it isn't an LP tax kook taking his act on the road.
Just curious and don't want to look it up. Paste it please if you have time.
Gross Income Defined (a) General definition (1) Compensation for services, including fees, commissions, fringe benefits, and similar items;
Nice try. Unfortunately, the IRS code is several thousand pages long. Cite page. Paragraph. Provide the exact quote, and a direct link. Until then, shut your fucking yap, you piece of shit government shill.
The current members of the "You're a worthless sack of shit" list includes WAR, calcon, e_type_jack-off, mad-dog (more like rabidly stupid), ibluafartsky and the fascism-shill no gnu taxes (aka 400 bucks, happyfunball, 50yardline, etc, etc.) If you're on the list, don't bother writing, 'cause you're a waste of flesh.
PROVE ME WRONG.
Until then, shut your fucking yap, you piece of shit government shill. Chuckles...you really are an asshole...look at the post above your piece of shit response...
He's being his normal duplicitous self. There IS no place, where an individual is required to pay "income" taxes. In fact, "income" is legally defined as "profit," separated from the underlying source. That is to say, what we call "capital gains," is legally defined as profit. Income tax is an excise tax on the profit from ones' investments. This can only occur as a corporation, NOT as an individual... Wages and salaries are an equitable trade for work, thus no profit, thus no "income," and no "income tax" is due. Throughout 26 U.S.C. § 61, it says "anyone who is liable to pay income taxes" (paraphrasing here, as it's been about 20 years since I studied this), should do thus-and-such. "Liable" means legally required. When you add it all together, you find that the IRS code, the income taxes, ALL of it.... is an illegal scam. Just one more hoodwinking of the American public. Nowhere in the IRS code will you find where it specifically defines "income." Nowhere in the IRS code will you find where it specifically says an individual is liable for income taxes. war is a government shill. That's his job. And he'll fight all-out on this point, but after all the smoke-and-mirrors, he STILL won't post anything of substance.
The current members of the "You're a worthless sack of shit" list includes WAR, calcon, e_type_jack-off, mad-dog (more like rabidly stupid), ibluafartsky and the fascism-shill no gnu taxes (aka 400 bucks, happyfunball, 50yardline, etc, etc.) If you're on the list, don't bother writing, 'cause you're a waste of flesh.
I am aware of the arguments on both sides. Bottom line is we have an illegal government and we better pay or they will come and kill us or take all our stuff away and imprison us.
Wages, under case law, have long been deemed compensation for a personal service. When the 16th amendment eliminated apportionment as a requirment for direct taxes, everyone knew that this meant wages were going to be taxed. It's in the debates.
And yet during the last two years of the Clinton administration unemployment was lower, taxes were higher, and the debt was lower than they are today - go figure. Sounds Biblical to me... You're an idiot. How so? Copied from http://www.criminalgovernment.com/docs/planks.html Could one say that the above site has a certain bias?
(a) General definition Except as otherwise provided in this subtitle, gross income means all income from whatever source derived, including (but not limited to) the following items: (a) General definition Except as otherwise provided in this subtitle, gross income means all income from whatever source derived, including (but not limited to) the following items........ You cited the Internal Revenue Code. CITE the page, paragraph, and provide a LINK to that page of the code. ANYTHING ELSE IS BULLSHIT. A good summary, lifted from http://www.afreecountry.com/tpcs/irs/income.php The term income is defined nowhere in Title 26 of the US Code, which is the law that relates to the "income" tax. The term "income" has repeatedly been held by the courts to indicate "gain on capital" and not receipts, wages or a fee received in exchange for selling an item of property. Since a tax on property would be a direct, unapportioned tax that the US Constitution does not allow, even selling a house for more than you paid for it would be a direct tax on property. As you will see below, the US Supreme Court has ruled, not just once, but repeatedly, that the federal governmnet cannot levee a tax on your property, and ultimately, your labor. It should also be noted by the reader that a Supreme Court ruling stands forever unless it is specifically overturned by the Supreme Court itself. The legislature cannot legislate law to change the US Constitution and any laws that are passed by the legislative branch that are not within the constraints of the Constitution are null and void as they relate to sovereign Citizens. The reason there are so many unconstitutional laws is because there are two United States and these laws apply in the federal government's version of the United States. Some people who want to pass laws outside the constraints of the US Constitution try to claim that it is a "living breathing" document that has to have a new interpretation as time passes. This mode of thinking would simply deem the act of writing the Constitution fruitless. Why bother writing a Constitution if its meaning will change depending on who is reading it this year. Anyone who rises to power could simply rule as a dictator and ignore the Constitution, since he could simply state he doesn't read it that way. The 16th Amendment did not increase the federal government taxing power to new subjects. 'The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration.' As repeatedly held, this did not extend the taxing power to new subjects, but merely removed the necessity which otherwise might exist for an apportionment among the states of taxes laid on income. Brushaber v. Union Pacific R. R. Co., 240 U.S. 1 The Supreme Court said the Legislature could not change the Constitution Title 26 of the US Code does not define income. As such, the US Supreme Court defined income. It is obvious that these decisions in principle rule the case at bar if the word 'income' has the same meaning in the Income Tax Act of 1913 that it had in the Corporation Excise Tax Act of 1909, and that it has the same scope of meaning was in effect decided in Southern Pacific Co. v. Lowe, 247 U.S. 330, 335, 38 S. Sup. Ct. 540, where it was assumed for the purposes of decision that there was no difference in its meaning as used in the act of 1909 and in the Income Tax Act of 1913 (38 Stat. 114). There can be no doubt that the word must be given the same meaning and content in the Income Tax Acts of 1916 and 1917 that it had in the act of 1913. When to this we add that in Eisner v. Macomber, supra, a case arising under the same Income Tax Act of 1916 which is here involved, the definition of 'income' which was applied was adopted from Stratton's Independence v. Howbert, supra, arising under the Corporation Excise Tax Act of 1909, with the addition that it should include 'profit gained through sale or conversion of capital assets,' there would seem to be no room to doubt that the word must be given the same meaning in all of the Income Tax Acts of Congress that was given to it in the Corporation Excise Tax Act, and that what that meaning is has now become definitely settled by decisions of this Court. In determining the definition of the word 'income' thus arrived at, this Court has consistently refused to enter into the refinements of lexicographers or economists, and has approved, in the definitions quoted, what it believed to be the commonly understood meaning of the term which must have been in the minds of the people when they adopted the Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution. Doyle v. Mitchell Brothers Co., 247 U.S. 179, 185, 38 S. Sup. Ct. 467; Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189, 206, 207 S., 40 Sup. Ct. 189, 9 A. L. R. 1570. (See Above) Notwithstanding the full argument heard in this case and in the series of cases now under consideration, we continue entirely satisfied with that definition, and, since the fund here taxed was the amount realized from the sale of the stock in 1917, less the capital investment as determined by the trustee as of March 1, 1913, it is palpable that it was a 'gain or profit' 'produced by' or 'derived from' that investment, and that it 'proceeded' and was 'severed' or rendered severable from it by the sale for cash, and thereby became that 'realized gain' which has been repeatedly declared to be taxable income within the meaning of the constitutional amendment and the acts of Congress. Doyle v. Mitchell Brothers Co. and Eisner v. Macomber, supra. It is elaborately argued in this case, in No. 609, Eldorado Coal & Mining Co. v. Harry W. Mager, Collector, etc., submitted with it, and in other cases since argued, that the word 'income' as used in the Sixteenth Amendment and in the Income Tax Act we are considering does not include the gain from capital realized by a single isolated sale of property, but that only the profits realized from sales by one engaged in buying and selling as a business-a merchant, a real estate agent, or broker- constitute income which may be taxed. It can be very easily ascertained that the meaning of income did not change after the passage of the 16th amendment. The meaning was decided by the Supreme Court to be the same even after the federal government had passed three separate acts in 1913 (the addition of the 16th Amendment,) 1916 and 1917. Even though the government repeatedly attempted to expand the scope of the word 'income', the Supreme Court repeatedly ruled its meaning was the same. It is also obvious by the last paragraph in bold in the last case above, that selling one's house for more money than for which it was purchase cannot be construed as gain on capital or capital gains. Even for those who fall under the jurisdiction of the federal government who also sell a house at a later date than it was purchased, do not have to pay a capital gains tax on said house. Just to repeat the specific decision above. Only when you know the truth and act on the truth will you be free of enslavement. Knowing is nothing without action.
The current members of the "You're a worthless sack of shit" list includes WAR, calcon, e_type_jack-off, mad-dog (more like rabidly stupid), ibluafartsky and the fascism-shill no gnu taxes (aka 400 bucks, happyfunball, 50yardline, etc, etc.) If you're on the list, don't bother writing, 'cause you're a waste of flesh.
Could one say that the above site has a certain bias? Aha. I understand, now. YOU LOVE THE GOVERNMENT... BTW, I really like your pic... Which one are YOU? The current members of the "You're a worthless sack of shit" list includes WAR, calcon, e_type_jack-off, mad-dog (more like rabidly stupid), ibluafartsky and the fascism-shill no gnu taxes (aka 400 bucks, happyfunball, 50yardline, etc, etc.) If you're on the list, don't bother writing, 'cause you're a waste of flesh.
The Constitution gives government the right to tax income derived from work (wages). Please provide the definition of "income," as established by SCOTUS, over 100 years ago. How about you provide it and then we can both start on the same page.
YOU LOVE THE GOVERNMENT... I thought you were smarter than that.
I cited the Internal Revenue Code as it exists in US Code. M. Randolph Hamilton Who the fuck is he? A blogger? The term income is defined nowhere in Title 26 of the US Code, which is the law that relates to the "income" tax. Even your blogger agrees that I cited US Code. a tax on property would be a direct, unapportioned tax that the US Constitution does not allow The 16th amendment removed the apportionment requirement for direct taxes. None of the cases that you cited were wage cases.
Show me a case in which "labor" has been defined as "property" with a source and a link or STFU. [snicker] Thanks. That said, it's not the "property" that's being taxed...it's the income derived from it.
Show me the court case where that is stated. Bob and weave, dumbshit. You're DONE,, and you know it. All your manipulations won't change that. Oh, and BTW, the fact that you call me an asshole, I take as a compliment. Being called an asshole, for shining the light of truth on a worthless cockroach like you, I thoroughly ENJOY. Being called names for it- by the roaches- makes me feel all warm inside. Now that you've entertained me, and I've had my fun, you're back to bozo. Bye, shit-head. The current members of the "You're a worthless sack of shit" list includes WAR, calcon, e_type_jack-off, mad-dog (more like rabidly stupid), ibluafartsky and the fascism-shill no gnu taxes (aka 400 bucks, happyfunball, 50yardline, etc, etc.) If you're on the list, don't bother writing, 'cause you're a waste of flesh.
Really? WHERE, exactly, does it say that in the Constitution? Do you understand the words "excise" and "apportionment?" Get educated, and then come talk with the adults...
The current members of the "You're a worthless sack of shit" list includes WAR, calcon, e_type_jack-off, mad-dog (more like rabidly stupid), ibluafartsky and the fascism-shill no gnu taxes (aka 400 bucks, happyfunball, 50yardline, etc, etc.) If you're on the list, don't bother writing, 'cause you're a waste of flesh.
I was checking the constitution and it said nothing about case law. It said the legislature made the law and it only became law if the President signed it. Case law equals usurption.
It's in the plain language of the amendment, moron. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.
Amendments only become part of the constitution of 2/3 of states, 2/3 of senate and 2/3 of house vote for it. Can you give me a list of the Senators and congressmen who voted for it? I don't think 2/3 voted for it. Also could you tell me which states ratified it. I don't think 2/3 did that either.
Or was it 3/4 of the states. Either way could you give me a list?
Check again in Articles III and IV and in Amendment VII. Prior to the Civil War, the SCOTUS was more likely to rule in a case of common law than of Consitutional.
You staunchly defend the practice of the government STEALING money from my pocket. You can wrap it up in fantastic rationalizations, say "oh, it's to feed the poor widdle babies..." Of course, that means it's harder for me to feed MY babies... And I have to earn more money, to support my family with MY money. But you JUST DON'T CARE. What matters is that YOU feel good, as you steal MY money, to give to someone else who didn't EARN it. You don't THINK. You EMOTE. And you are one STUPID woman...
The current members of the "You're a worthless sack of shit" list includes WAR, calcon, e_type_jack-off, mad-dog (more like rabidly stupid), ibluafartsky and the fascism-shill no gnu taxes (aka 400 bucks, happyfunball, 50yardline, etc, etc.) If you're on the list, don't bother writing, 'cause you're a waste of flesh.
Of course I am. I've humiliated you once again. You can't defend that bullshit so you run and hide. So bye, assshole.
I have read it. Can you cut and paste the relevant part? Please.
Can we keep the nonsensical conspiracy stuff out of this? The 16th amendment is part of the USCON. Like it or not.
Also could you tell me which states ratified it. I don't think 2/3 did that either. Oh, SHIIIITTT...... Damn, dude... You're really gonna' make him pop a fuse, trying to twist out of THAT one.... LOL. A friend of mine has been collecting documenation on this question, for decades... An entire office filled with hard-copies, correspondances, etc, regarding this... I'm tempted to take him off the bozo-list, just to watch his ass twist in the wind... Nah..... I've already had my fun for the day. LOL.
The current members of the "You're a worthless sack of shit" list includes WAR, calcon, e_type_jack-off, mad-dog (more like rabidly stupid), ibluafartsky and the fascism-shill no gnu taxes (aka 400 bucks, happyfunball, 50yardline, etc, etc.) If you're on the list, don't bother writing, 'cause you're a waste of flesh.
Article III establishes a judicial branch. Any decision made by a court is precedent to all that follows. And while precedent can and is sometimes overturned, it's rare that it is. Precedent, aka stare decisis, is all case law and we are bound by the decision. Article IV recognizes "judicial acts" and establishes comity thereunto between the states - it's part of the so called "gay marriage" controversy. Article VII protects the right to jury in cases of common law [over $20] and that the courts are bound by the decisions made in common law. The whole of common law is case law.
They're going to try, anyway... I believe THIS is what mcgowanjm was referring to, on another thread... http://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=13476&Disp=1#C1
The current members of the "You're a worthless sack of shit" list includes WAR, calcon, e_type_jack-off, mad-dog (more like rabidly stupid), ibluafartsky and the fascism-shill no gnu taxes (aka 400 bucks, happyfunball, 50yardline, etc, etc.) If you're on the list, don't bother writing, 'cause you're a waste of flesh.
According to the United States Government Printing Office, the following states ratified the amendment: 1. Alabama (August 10, 1909) Ratification (by the requisite 36 states) was completed on February 3, 1913 with the ratification by Delaware. The amendment was subsequently ratified by the following states, bringing the total number of ratifying states to forty-two of the forty-eight then existing: 37. New Mexico (February 3, 1913) The legislatures of the following states rejected the amendment without ever subsequently ratifying it: Connecticut The legislatures of the following states never considered the proposed amendment: Florida
Not sure but I went through this with him early on here. It may have been over the 14th...either way...shine on Harvest Moon...
Wrong again, Stone. Two thirds of both houses are needed to propose an amendment. It then requires 3/4 of the states to ratify it.
I've now done it once and I'm done.
You can't defend that bullshit so you run and hide. Uh-HUH. Capitalist Eric: You're DONE. The fight is mine.. DwarF: 'Tis but a SCRATCH... I've had worse... Translation: "Oh. Oh, I see. Running away, eh? You yellow bastards! Come back here and take what's coming to you. I'll bite your legs off!" LOL.
The current members of the "You're a worthless sack of shit" list includes WAR, calcon, e_type_jack-off, mad-dog (more like rabidly stupid), ibluafartsky and the fascism-shill no gnu taxes (aka 400 bucks, happyfunball, 50yardline, etc, etc.) If you're on the list, don't bother writing, 'cause you're a waste of flesh.
Your large fonts and bolding coupled with underlining has me thinking twice about what you tax nuts say. Have you got a newsletter?
"Were you ever in the music or song writing business?" ... e_type_jagoff to Mudboy lol ..... AND ....... "But his decent into vile absurdity is still actually kind of sad and pitiful really" .... mad doggie
Not to mention the CAPS.
"Were you ever in the music or song writing business?" ... e_type_jagoff to Mudboy lol ..... AND ....... "But his decent into vile absurdity is still actually kind of sad and pitiful really" .... mad doggie
Uh-HUH. The victors write the history books. And this completely avoids the question already posed, which (I'm shocked, SHOCKED) war completely ignored: If you have such a command of this issue, you have that information at your fingertips, yes??? Perhaps you'd care to provide it? And I can take it back to my friend, and see if it matches with his records and documents (though the double-checking of this may take weeks).
The current members of the "You're a worthless sack of shit" list includes WAR, calcon, e_type_jack-off, mad-dog (more like rabidly stupid), ibluafartsky and the fascism-shill no gnu taxes (aka 400 bucks, happyfunball, 50yardline, etc, etc.) If you're on the list, don't bother writing, 'cause you're a waste of flesh.
???
The current members of the "You're a worthless sack of shit" list includes WAR, calcon, e_type_jack-off, mad-dog (more like rabidly stupid), ibluafartsky and the fascism-shill no gnu taxes (aka 400 bucks, happyfunball, 50yardline, etc, etc.) If you're on the list, don't bother writing, 'cause you're a waste of flesh.
LOL. Predictable as always, aren't you? Argumentum ad hominem. Did you ever graduate high-school, or did they let you slip by with a GED?
The current members of the "You're a worthless sack of shit" list includes WAR, calcon, e_type_jack-off, mad-dog (more like rabidly stupid), ibluafartsky and the fascism-shill no gnu taxes (aka 400 bucks, happyfunball, 50yardline, etc, etc.) If you're on the list, don't bother writing, 'cause you're a waste of flesh.
I no have education. I have inspiration. If I was educated I would be a damn fool.
"Were you ever in the music or song writing business?" ... e_type_jagoff to Mudboy lol ..... AND ....... "But his decent into vile absurdity is still actually kind of sad and pitiful really" .... mad doggie
As I suspected. "The only thing more expensive than education is ignorance." Too bad it doesn't make up for your ignorance. Said Bob Marley... You prefer being an ignorant fool. Typical.
The current members of the "You're a worthless sack of shit" list includes WAR, calcon, e_type_jack-off, mad-dog (more like rabidly stupid), ibluafartsky and the fascism-shill no gnu taxes (aka 400 bucks, happyfunball, 50yardline, etc, etc.) If you're on the list, don't bother writing, 'cause you're a waste of flesh.
Your list isn't accurate and doesn't take into account many things. It doesn't take on ex post facto law. Do you support ex post facto law? It doesn't take into account that a natural born citizen has to be president.
Take it up with the freedom loving founding fathers who authored the Constitution and those who ratified it. No doubt taxation under Articles of Confederation would have been more to your liking, however it just wasn't working out. The Constitutional Convention addressed the issue of an adequately funded federal government by expanding the authority of the central government to tax. It was a survival issue. But you JUST DON'T CARE. What matters is that YOU feel good, as you steal MY money, to give to someone else who didn't EARN it. You don't THINK. You EMOTE. You ain't no slacker in the emoting department yourself. It appears to me that you want all the blessings, protections, and opportunity of a civilized community without paying the price.
You have YET to answer my question: Do you understand the words "excise" and "apportionment?"
The current members of the "You're a worthless sack of shit" list includes WAR, calcon, e_type_jack-off, mad-dog (more like rabidly stupid), ibluafartsky and the fascism-shill no gnu taxes (aka 400 bucks, happyfunball, 50yardline, etc, etc.) If you're on the list, don't bother writing, 'cause you're a waste of flesh.
Weren't you putting me on bozo? Buck up the case law wherein labor is defined as "property" and answer the other goddam questions.
You don't know SHIT about what I want.
The current members of the "You're a worthless sack of shit" list includes WAR, calcon, e_type_jack-off, mad-dog (more like rabidly stupid), ibluafartsky and the fascism-shill no gnu taxes (aka 400 bucks, happyfunball, 50yardline, etc, etc.) If you're on the list, don't bother writing, 'cause you're a waste of flesh.
I do...what of it.
You've got stuff really mixed up there. The 16th Amendment was written as a direct response to the SCOTUS decision in Pollock v. Farmer's Loan & Trust Co. which said that tax on income derived from property (something one owns) is a direct tax and subject to the apportionment rule. The question of a tax on income derived from work was not an issue.
Yes, do you?
I can only surmise from what you write - the words you use.
Feel free to buck up your own list. A constitutional amendment is exactly that...a change to the constitution via amendment. That is not an ex post facto law. And that said, an ex post facto law is one that institutes a present penalty for a past behavior...i.e. you drove drunk in 1988 when it was a summary offense...in 2010 it's a Class D felony and is applied retroactively to you.
Marley said the whole thing. And you won't be able to be educated until you dump all your quotes, stop reading Lew and start thinking for yourself. I doubt that'll happen.
"Were you ever in the music or song writing business?" ... e_type_jagoff to Mudboy lol ..... AND ....... "But his decent into vile absurdity is still actually kind of sad and pitiful really" .... mad doggie
Chuckles...
I know what ex post facto law is. Answer me this. And this is just one of many attacks on this so called law. When did Ohio become a state?
It doesn't take on ex post facto law. Do you support ex post facto law? It doesn't take into account that a natural born citizen has to be president. You're crazy as a loon, you know. None of what you're babbling about has a thing to do with what I posted.
You celebrate statehood on March 1st because that's when the Ohio General Assembly met the first time in 1803. In actuality, The United States Senate and the House of Representatives each approved the Ohio Constitution of 1803 prohibited slavery, and on February 19, 1803 Ohio became a state. That was the day Democratic-Republican Party leader Thomas Worthington presented it in Washington, D.C.
Then why did congressman George Bender in 1953 propose and pass a bill to make Ohio a state? And why did Eisenhower sign the ex post facto bill on Aug 7, 1953?
Oh yes. And who intorduced the bill. Oh yes he was from Ohio the non-state at the time.
I purposefully didn't give you the full story at first. See the two posts above. 151 and something I think.
Does this mean only white males can vote in Ohio?
That actually isn't what the "bill" did. It corrected what the Congress believed to be an error of verbiage. But what does it matter? Ohio ratified the USCON in 1803.
1803 which was reinforced in a bill passed in 1953. What does this have to do with an ex post facto law?
That's not an ex post facto law.
So sorry, but YOU are all fucked up. You need to get your shit together, before you wade into an argument. You use dialectical terms to build false rhetorical arguments. Oh, the dialectical terms pretty up your position, but the bottom line is that you *actively* support tyranny. You are beneath contempt. "The power to tax is the power to destroy." If you understood even THAT, then you might be worthy of further conversation. Unfortunately, you're too indoctrinated, and hopelessly inured to the chains that bind you. I don't feel sorry for you, but I sure feel sorry for your daughter. What a shame.
The current members of the "You're a worthless sack of shit" list includes WAR, calcon, e_type_jack-off, mad-dog (more like rabidly stupid), ibluafartsky and the fascism-shill no gnu taxes (aka 400 bucks, happyfunball, 50yardline, etc, etc.) If you're on the list, don't bother writing, 'cause you're a waste of flesh.
Ohio voted for the income tax dimwit. It what 1913. They weren't a lawful state until 1953.
So your advice is to *stop* reading...? And the goal is ... What? Be an empty-headed moron like YOU? When was the last time you read a book? When was the last time you read a REAL book, besides pulp-fiction, tabloids or skin mags? The current list of books I am reading are written by Richard Weaver, Anthony Debons, Thomas Kuhn, Daniel Chandler, Michael Crichton, Clifford Geertz, Hofstede and Sonja Foss (et al). And yes, I'm reading them in parallel... Notice, that not *one* of them is by an economist... (I've studied that for the better part of ten years, so I've moved on to new topics.) If the choice is to keep learning by reading great works, or do nothing, and be like you...? Then I'll pick the former, ANY old day of the week... While you can sit in front of your idiot-box, and be entertained by the fictions the MSM decides you should see... Watch your football game, drink your beer... And be happy in your mental prison... God, you people are so fucking STUPID, it's no surprise why the government elites look upon you with such disdain... Feh.
The current members of the "You're a worthless sack of shit" list includes WAR, calcon, e_type_jack-off, mad-dog (more like rabidly stupid), ibluafartsky and the fascism-shill no gnu taxes (aka 400 bucks, happyfunball, 50yardline, etc, etc.) If you're on the list, don't bother writing, 'cause you're a waste of flesh.
You need to get your shit together, before you wade into an argument. Seems everyone is stupid and/or deluded except you. "The power to tax is the power to destroy." The big bad government has the power to tax. The founding fathers intended the government they created to have the power to tax - so what's your point? I don't feel sorry for you, but I sure feel sorry for your daughter. If you think gratuitous snotyness enhances your credibility then have at it.
Who said "the power to tax, is the power to destroy"...? Like I said, you need to get your SHIT together. > Maybe, instead of trying to debate topics you haven't the foggiest NOTION of, you should do something more suited to your abilities... Like scrap-booking, or stringing beads... In the battle of ideas, you're worse then an unarmed opponent... You fight to protect those that have made you a slave... Go back to the flock... Chew your cud... The masters will be along soon emough, to FLEECE you once again. But don't expect those of us, who truly understand, to join you... You're going to learn the hard way, that EVERYTHINg I have said, is the truth. Pity, that your daughter will suffer for your blind and WILLFUL ignorance. TRULY a pity.
The current members of the "You're a worthless sack of shit" list includes WAR, calcon, e_type_jack-off, mad-dog (more like rabidly stupid), ibluafartsky and the fascism-shill no gnu taxes (aka 400 bucks, happyfunball, 50yardline, etc, etc.) If you're on the list, don't bother writing, 'cause you're a waste of flesh.
Oh, and BTW, you're bozoed. Life is too short, to tolerate fools.
The current members of the "You're a worthless sack of shit" list includes WAR, calcon, e_type_jack-off, mad-dog (more like rabidly stupid), ibluafartsky and the fascism-shill no gnu taxes (aka 400 bucks, happyfunball, 50yardline, etc, etc.) If you're on the list, don't bother writing, 'cause you're a waste of flesh.
Updated signature, to reflect the addition to the "you're a waste of good oxygen" list.
The current members of the "You're a worthless sack of shit" list includes WAR, lucysmom (empty-headed bimbo), calcon, e_type_jack-off, mad-dog (more like rabidly stupid), ibluafartsky and the fascism-shill no gnu taxes (aka 400 bucks, happyfunball, 50yardline, etc, etc.) If you're on the list, don't bother writing, 'cause you're a waste of flesh.
Let somebody clue you in asshole. So....you get probably the one remaining simple soul who bothers to address you with something other than the derisive butchering of your stupid name and you piss on her and make here "invisible" to your prissy faggot eyes...... Cheyahhhhh......of all the 10 or so utterly contemptible shitbags on this site, I can only match you with dwarf as equally deserving of my load of spit directed at your worthless overbearing comically self important face. Spit......nevermind....soon you'll match the number of posters who even bother to address skip maclure:):)
Death to everybody who does not get outta my way. Famous Dwarfisms : "the shorts and bibs I wear are of a carbon/lycra/nylon composition...and maaaaaannnnnn....just letting everybody know that makes my balls SWELL... #2. To: e_type_jag (#1) "I hate that you're off the plantation" 9-03-2010 Sheets Jerx .........(Why Fred???why the hate???....was it because my left Vibram sole made a lasting imprint on your face as I stepped over your constantly prone body and hopped the plantation wall .....:):)
A) The date of statehood is 1803. B) While you may understand what ex post facto means, you seem to lack an understanding of an ex post facto law is.
Chuckles...Chief Justice John Marshall who struck down a Maryland law which levied a STATE tax on a FEDERAL institution - a bank in this case. Marshall's reasoning was that the FEDERAL CONSTITUTION was the supreme law of the land and that the FEDERAL government was SUPERIOR to STATE governments. That should the States posses the power to tax in such manner they could tax the federal government out of existence. Marshall NEVER declared that the Federal government had no power to tax nor did he declare that State governments had no power to tax. Just that the States could not tax in this manner. That said, you're really fucking stupid, douche.
A) You've bozo'd everyone who posts here regularly. B) NO one gives a fucking shit about you and your little asshole list. C) With two more you get egg roll.
They never voted to make Ohio a state in 1803. That is why they voted in 1953 to make Ohio a state. Then they claimed to make it retroactive to 1803. You're wrong buddy.
He'll never bozo me. I think he's intrigued by my knowledge. I'm intrigued by his command of font sizes and other font altering techniques.
"Were you ever in the music or song writing business?" ... e_type_jagoff to Mudboy lol ..... AND ....... "But his decent into vile absurdity is still actually kind of sad and pitiful really" .... mad doggie
Boring!!!! I bet there isn't a picture in any of those crapfests. Even their names sound stupid.
"Were you ever in the music or song writing business?" ... e_type_jagoff to Mudboy lol ..... AND ....... "But his decent into vile absurdity is still actually kind of sad and pitiful really" .... mad doggie
They're going to try, anyway... I believe THIS is what mcgowanjm was referring to, on another thread... http://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=13476&Disp=1#C1 "They said they would determine what was evidence later," Power said. Stalin's Courts couldn't have said it better. Want to know what a combo of Germany/USSR 1937 would be like? You're livin' it. ;} mcgowanjm posted on 2010-09-25 8:30:18 ET What I was referring to was that The Above is happening NOW. That this will fail, as Violence by the State always does, and so Speculators, then Pogroms, the actual War will commence. Further, as we are now Repeating History (which is what you do when you FAIL the class;} the repetitions/spirals will come faster and more viciously.
You've been the recipient of bad information. There was a "problem" with how the ratfication was recorded by the US Congress. It was kind of like the do over that Roberts and Obama did. Regardless. it's still not ex post facto. An ex post facto LAW, sanctions PAST CRIMINAL behavior in a CURRENT law. It's the counter point to forfeiture of blood.
BTW, I am in the Bay Area all day Thursday and some of Wednesday night and I will be in LA on Friday before red-eying it home. PM me if you want to have a beer.
Problem was they voted on what the boundaries would be. But they didn't vote to make Ohio a state. Ohio became a state in 1953 or they wouldn't have voted in 1953 to make Ohio a state.
I'd love to. However, I will not be in the Bay Area at that time.
"Were you ever in the music or song writing business?" ... e_type_jagoff to Mudboy lol ..... AND ....... "But his decent into vile absurdity is still actually kind of sad and pitiful really" .... mad doggie
Ohio was a sovereign state since 1803 as they voted to form their own state. But was not officially accepted into the Union by the ratification process until 1953. Think of all those pres elections Ohioans illegally voted in, proving the ability of the state's citizens to continually act like oafs when they didn't press the feds for earlier complete ratification. But it does show Ohioans lack of ability to follow through and their always needing to be lead by the nose to do what's right..
It's got to have pictures, for you to read it, eh? As I suspected, your speed if literature features scintillating dialogue from the multi-faceted characters of Archie and Jug-head. Thank you for confirming that you are, indeed, a brainless twit. (((Shaking head while LOL))) Thanks for the laugh...
The current members of the "You're a worthless sack of shit" list includes WAR, lucysmom (empty-headed bimbo), calcon, e_type_jack-off, mad-dog (more like rabidly stupid), ibluafartsky and the fascism-shill no gnu taxes (aka 400 bucks, happyfunball, 50yardline, etc, etc.) If you're on the list, don't bother writing, 'cause you're a waste of flesh.
WOW! I could read that without my glasses and before coffee. (good morning to you too, BTW) Who said "the power to tax, is the power to destroy"...? John Marshall. What's your point? Maybe, instead of trying to debate topics you haven't the foggiest NOTION of, you should do something more suited to your abilities... Like scrap-booking, or stringing beads... Hard to believe, I know - however I do have a foggy notion of the topic and still disagree with you. What I find hard to understand is why are you so upset with me? In the battle of ideas, you're worse then an unarmed opponent... You fight to protect those that have made you a slave... You're confused again - let me see if I can help What you see as "fight to protect" I see as recognizing "what is". The first government under the Articles of Confederation relied on the good will and conscience of the states for funding - not surprisingly, that didn't work out so well so they did it over. The preamble to the Constitution says: We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. Think about those words. Don't they just smack of organized government (indeed, the Constitution goes on to lay out the organization) to bring to fruition the goals mentioned? Doesn't an organized government need both money and authority to carry out its lawful functions? The founding fathers thought so because they gave the government the authority to tax, and the authority to tax is useless without the power to collect. That's just a reality. Of course the founding fathers didn't end with the granting of power to government, but balanced that power with laying out rights and protections for individuals. Go back to the flock... Chew your cud... The masters will be along soon emough, to FLEECE you once again. Here's a quote you might ruminate on for awhile; "A man is not free unless his will is free, and if his will is free it doesn't matter that his body is bound". It looks to me like you get that you aren't free but you don't get where freedom comes from. As long as your sense of freedom depends on forces outside of yourself like government, you can never BE free. But don't expect those of us, who truly understand, to join you... I don't know where you and your ilk plan to hang out, but the United States of America under the Constitution is not your political home.
"God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty"
lol, awesome answer
"Were you ever in the music or song writing business?" ... e_type_jagoff to Mudboy lol ..... AND ....... "But his decent into vile absurdity is still actually kind of sad and pitiful really" .... mad doggie
Thank you!
Yeah, you're easily amused. BIG surprise. The current members of the "You're a worthless sack of shit" list includes WAR, lucysmom (empty-headed bimbo), calcon, e_type_jack-off, mad-dog (more like rabidly stupid), ibluafartsky and the fascism-shill no gnu taxes (aka 400 bucks, happyfunball, 50yardline, etc, etc.) If you're on the list, don't bother writing, 'cause you're a waste of flesh.
Did you win?
Face it, over-capitalizer, she kicked your ass.
"Were you ever in the music or song writing business?" ... e_type_jagoff to Mudboy lol ..... AND ....... "But his decent into vile absurdity is still actually kind of sad and pitiful really" .... mad doggie
Actually, they did.
Why do you think he put her on bozo...?
How would YOU know? After all, you're the one who's proudly displaying your ignorance. God help us, if this country has to depend on the likes of you, to survive. If that's the case, then we're FINISHED.
The current members of the "You're a worthless sack of shit" list includes WAR, lucysmom (empty-headed bimbo), calcon, e_type_jack-off, mad-dog (more like rabidly stupid), ibluafartsky and the fascism-shill no gnu taxes (aka 400 bucks, happyfunball, 50yardline, etc, etc.) If you're on the list, don't bother writing, 'cause you're a waste of flesh.
In other words it is the propaganda explain it away article. Ohio wasn't lawfully admitted in 1803. Deal with it. (the case with Kentucky, where a State was being created out of the territory of an already existing State [Virginia] that had already agreed to the separation). It is unconstitutional to make a state out of another state.
Says the pool cleaner.
"Were you ever in the music or song writing business?" ... e_type_jagoff to Mudboy lol ..... AND ....... "But his decent into vile absurdity is still actually kind of sad and pitiful really" .... mad doggie
You really are the clown on the dunk tank, aren't you? Had you bothered to read what i linked you to, you' have realized that theae changed between Ohio's admission and Kentucky's. But feel free to cite a source for a change. I simply laugh when you emit from your pool of general knowledge.
Watch out for earthquakes out there. My lady friend returned home yesterday and is still on the mend.
We don't have earthquakes. We have temblors. I realize that temblor is Spanish for earthquake, but then we don't have tidal waves either, we have tsunamis. Tsunami is Japanese for tidal wave. Funny world, isn't it?
Yep. It's MY pool. What do you have? Oh, BTW, inflatable pools don't count.
The current members of the "You're a worthless sack of shit" list includes WAR, lucysmom (empty-headed bimbo), calcon, e_type_jack-off, mad-dog (more like rabidly stupid), ibluafartsky and the fascism-shill no gnu taxes (aka 400 bucks, happyfunball, 50yardline, etc, etc.) If you're on the list, don't bother writing, 'cause you're a waste of flesh.
I think I'll stay away from Flying Saucers too... And glad to hear...
Nice try, but the database doesn't lie. You can't change your story now. Poolboy.
"Were you ever in the music or song writing business?" ... e_type_jagoff to Mudboy lol ..... AND ....... "But his decent into vile absurdity is still actually kind of sad and pitiful really" .... mad doggie
It's now clear why you don't read; your reading comprehension is wanting. Again, not a big surprise. Best for you to stick with comic-books.
The current members of the "You're a worthless sack of shit" list includes WAR, lucysmom (empty-headed bimbo), calcon, e_type_jack-off, mad-dog (more like rabidly stupid), ibluafartsky and the fascism-shill no gnu taxes (aka 400 bucks, happyfunball, 50yardline, etc, etc.) If you're on the list, don't bother writing, 'cause you're a waste of flesh.
Respond to Post 159 or fuck off, poolboy.
"Were you ever in the music or song writing business?" ... e_type_jagoff to Mudboy lol ..... AND ....... "But his decent into vile absurdity is still actually kind of sad and pitiful really" .... mad doggie
I don't see post 159. Must be from one of the other shitbags on my bozo list. If it's from war, it's not even a valid point- he's very good at manipulation. Which, of course, is why I bozoed him. Such nuances, I'm sure, are lost on you. ESAD.
The current members of the "You're a worthless sack of shit" list includes WAR, lucysmom (empty-headed bimbo), calcon, e_type_jack-off, mad-dog (more like rabidly stupid), ibluafartsky and the fascism-shill no gnu taxes (aka 400 bucks, happyfunball, 50yardline, etc, etc.) If you're on the list, don't bother writing, 'cause you're a waste of flesh.
Too bad. You're bozo filter prevented you from learning. But I'm sure you like it that way.
"Were you ever in the music or song writing business?" ... e_type_jagoff to Mudboy lol ..... AND ....... "But his decent into vile absurdity is still actually kind of sad and pitiful really" .... mad doggie
Let's put it THIS way... I'm so far above you, you'd need a telescope to see me. And BTW, this is not conjecture, it isn't blowing smoke... It's FACT. So keep in mind, when you make your amusing comments, that you're not bozoed, simply because you make me laugh at your stupidity. You're the moron in the room, who always laughs last, at a joke... Because you don't understand. But you're still good for a laugh. So far.
The current members of the "You're a worthless sack of shit" list includes WAR, lucysmom (empty-headed bimbo), calcon, e_type_jack-off, mad-dog (more like rabidly stupid), ibluafartsky and the fascism-shill no gnu taxes (aka 400 bucks, happyfunball, 50yardline, etc, etc.) If you're on the list, don't bother writing, 'cause you're a waste of flesh.
haha I get it!!!! Awesome :)
"Were you ever in the music or song writing business?" ... e_type_jagoff to Mudboy lol ..... AND ....... "But his decent into vile absurdity is still actually kind of sad and pitiful really" .... mad doggie
No, you DON'T. THAT'S what makes you funny.
Getting tired of the bozoed calcon following me around on the 'net, wanting to discuss "tossing salad." Sorry, you sick rump-ranger. NOT interested.
Ok, dude, lol Rock on!!! Finally I think we're connecting.
"Were you ever in the music or song writing business?" ... e_type_jagoff to Mudboy lol ..... AND ....... "But his decent into vile absurdity is still actually kind of sad and pitiful really" .... mad doggie
#2. To: A K A Stone (#1)
It let people who earned money keep more of the money they earned. No one but a communist would think that the government taking more money out of the economy is good. Are you a communist?
#3. To: Rhino, A K A Stone (#2)
Do you think that is anything close to intelligent conversation?
#4. To: Rhino, A K A Stone (#2)
Do you think that is anything close to intelligent conversation?
#5. To: mininggold (#3)
the war mongers here.
#6. To: Skip Intro (#0)
Author: David Cay Johnston
#7. To: Rhino (#2)
#8. To: A K A Stone (#1)
It let people who earned money keep more of the money they earned. No one but a communist would think that the government taking more money out of the economy is good. Are you a communist?
#9. To: Nebuchadnezzar, Skid Mark, dwarf (#8)
Notice how Skip spends his time attacking Bush, who has been out of office for nearly two years now, and doesn't condem Obama who has bankrupted the nation????
#10. To: A K A Stone (#7)
Do you smoke crack? You must if you think I ever supported any of these new world order wars.
#11. To: Rhino (#10)
#12. To: Rhino (#10)
#13. To: A K A Stone (#11)
(Edited)
Commies/socialists/progressives are all about taking money out of the economy so they can control us.
#14. To: Rhino (#13)
#15. To: A K A Stone (#14)
Govt revenue increased after the tax cuts. Probably more then 80 percent of what govt spends on is unconstitutional.
#16. To: Rhino (#15)
#17. To: A K A Stone, Skip Intro (#1)
No one but a communist would think that the government taking more money out of the economy is good. Are you a communist?
#18. To: A K A Stone (#16)
40 percent is way to much. Taxes should be about 10 percent tops. That is more then enough money for them to waste.
Also it is impossible to pay the debt back. It is a fraud. The kids of today don't owe it and should refuse to pay it. It isn't their debt. It is a bunch of elitest assholes debts. And dead peoples debts. Cancel it, it is bullshit. Congress doesn't have the authority to spend beyond their term and cripple future generations.
#19. To: All (#18)
#20. To: Rhino (#15)
I concede there is a point at which tax cuts do increase revenue.
Mad dog gets
"calibrated..."
#21. To: Capitalist Eric (#20)
You should look up Arther Laffer.
#22. To: Rhino (#19)
Also the Capital Gains tax should be exactly what the same tax on earned income is.
#23. To: Rhino (#18)
Unfortunately Congress does have the authority to create debt. Ignoring that debt isn't a reasonable option.
#24. To: lucysmom (#22)
Also the Capital Gains tax should be exactly what the same tax on earned income is.
#25. To: Capitalist Eric (#20)
The current members of the "You're a worthless sack of shit" list
#26. To: lucysmom (#17)
Bush borrowed money from the Communists
#27. To: lucysmom (#17)
(Edited)
Bush borrowed money from the Communists
democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not -- Thomas Jefferson
#28. To: Capitalist Eric (#20)
I concede there is a point at which tax cuts do increase revenue.
#29. To: A K A Stone (#23)
#30. To: jwpegler (#27)
China is MUCH more capitalistic than than U.S.
#31. To: lucysmom (#30)
(Edited)
Oh - well - its ok then.
democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not -- Thomas Jefferson
#32. To: jwpegler (#31)
Bush was horrible. Obama is worse. They both suck.
#33. To: lucysmom (#32)
(Edited)
Obama really didn't have a choice.
democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not -- Thomas Jefferson
#34. To: Capitalist Eric (#20)
#35. To: lucysmom (#32)
Actually I think Bush is the worser of the two - he chose to borrow rather than pay down the debt - Obama really didn't have a choice.
#36. To: lucysmom (#32)
Bush is the worser
#37. To: Nebuchadnezzar (#35)
Obama's "Stimulus" is far worse than anything Bush did.
#38. To: Rhino (#28)
The laffer curve is somewhat bullshit.
Mad dog gets
"calibrated..."
#39. To: Nebuchadnezzar (#34)
Laffer is an idiot.
Mad dog gets
"calibrated..."
#40. To: lucysmom (#21)
His current plan for restoring economic health is to suspend ALL federal tax collection for a year and a half.
Mad dog gets
"calibrated..."
#41. To: Capitalist Eric (#40)
That's a very good idea. STARVE 'em...!
#42. To: All, Capitalist Eric (#41)
That's a very good idea. STARVE 'em...!
#43. To: jwpegler (#27)
I've been to China a few times. China is MUCH more capitalistic than than U.S.
#44. To: Capitalist Eric (#38)
#45. To: Rhino (#44)
However, Laffer never won the Nobel Prize.
First of not even the laffer curve says that cutting taxes always increases revenue. There is a rate at which tax cuts lose revenue.
Supply Side economics has no empirical basis. Plenty of economists, including Nobel winners, dismiss it.
Mad dog gets
"calibrated..."
#46. To: lucysmom (#41)
(Edited)
Mad dog gets
"calibrated..."
#47. To: lucysmom (#42)
"STARVE 'em" might just be a very good idea from your perspective.
Mad dog gets
"calibrated..."
#48. To: Capitalist Eric (#45)
Of course. Which, of course, the Laffer curve perfectly illustrates. What's your point?
LOL.
#49. To: Capitalist Eric (#47)
#50. To: Rhino (#49)
why we need higher tax rates.
#51. To: Ibluafartsky (#50)
#52. To: Rhino (#51)
You can't support spending like a socialist
#53. To: Ibluafartsky (#52)
#54. To: Rhino (#53)
Irrelevant if you support people who don't.
#55. To: Ibluafartsky (#54)
#56. To: Rhino (#55)
You supported Bush who signed massive budgets into law.
#57. To: Ibluafartsky (#56)
#58. To: Rhino (#57)
(Edited)
www.libertypost.org
#59. To: Capitalist Eric (#47)
As we, the hosts, lose energy, and our lives fade, the parasite gets less nourishment, and starts to suck harder, to keep itself fat and happy, with no regard to the fact that the host is now critical.
#60. To: Rhino (#48)
your point... That saying tax cuts increase revenue without stating a reason to think we are above the revenue maximizing rate is silly. In all likelihood we are below the maximizing rate. The Bush tax cuts showed no increase in revenue, only drops. It's very likely tax increases will increase revenue.
Austrian Economics is a relic of a past century.
Mad dog gets
"calibrated..."
#61. To: Capitalist Eric (#60)
your arguments remind me of Jim Cramar, of "Mad Money.". Great sound and fury, signifying nothing.
#62. To: Rhino (#61)
Austrian economics is dead, has been for a long time. Anyone school that doesn't embrace empiricism is a joke.
Mad dog gets
"calibrated..."
#63. To: Rhino (#61)
And none of that had anything to do with tax policy.
Mad dog gets
"calibrated..."
#64. To: lucysmom (#59)
Government actually does provide services for its citizens - the relationship is not parasitic but rather symbiotic.
Mad dog gets
"calibrated..."
#65. To: Capitalist Eric (#64)
The government plays "Robin Hood." It takes money from those that work, and gives it to those that won't.
#66. To: Capitalist Eric (#64)
The government plays "Robin Hood." It takes money from those that work, and gives it to those that won't.
#67. To: war (#65)
In fact, most of the money it takes is from those who work and given to people who do work under government cpontracts or who hold the debt.
#68. To: lucysmom (#67)
Why aren't capital gains taxed at the same rate as income from work?
#69. To: war (#68)
Because it's "risk" money serving an economic good.
#70. To: lucysmom (#69)
Seems risk money has become very risk adverse.
#71. To: lucysmom (#66)
Does the part of your brain that holds the above statement to be true communicate with the part of your brain that notes employment rates correlate with the health of the economy? Do you ever wonder why more people "won't" work at this particular point in time than in April 2001?
The government motto: "From each according to abilities, to each according to his needs."
Part of a series on Marxism
Mad dog gets
"calibrated..."
#72. To: lucysmom (#67)
Why aren't capital gains taxed at the same rate as income from work?
Mad dog gets
"calibrated..."
#73. To: Capitalist Eric (#72)
(Edited)
Please provide the specific law that says the money we earn from work (aka wages or salaries) are considered "income."
#74. To: Capitalist Eric (#72)
#75. To: war (#73)
#76. To: A K A Stone (#75)
Except as otherwise provided in this subtitle, gross income means all income from whatever source derived, including (but not limited to) the following items: (a) General definition Except as otherwise provided in this subtitle, gross income means all income from whatever source derived, including (but not limited to) the following items:
(2) Gross income derived from business;
(3) Gains derived from dealings in property;
(4) Interest;
(5) Rents;
(6) Royalties;
(7) Dividends;
(8) Alimony and separate maintenance payments;
(9) Annuities;
(10) Income from life insurance and endowment contracts;
(11) Pensions;
(12) Income from discharge of indebtedness;
(13) Distributive share of partnership gross income;
(14) Income in respect of a decedent; and
(15) Income from an interest in an estate or trust. (1) Compensation for services, including fees, commissions, fringe benefits, and similar items;
(2) Gross income derived from business;
(3) Gains derived from dealings in property;
(4) Interest;
(5) Rents;
(6) Royalties;
(7) Dividends;
(8) Alimony and separate maintenance payments;
(9) Annuities;
(10) Income from life insurance and endowment contracts;
(11) Pensions;
(12) Income from discharge of indebtedness;
(13) Distributive share of partnership gross income;
(14) Income in respect of a decedent; and
(15) Income from an interest in an estate or trust.
#77. To: war (#73)
26 U.S.C. § 61
Mad dog gets
"calibrated..."
#78. To: Capitalist Eric (#77)
Nice try.
#79. To: Capitalist Eric (#77)
(Edited)
Cite page. Paragraph. Provide the exact quote, and a direct link.
#80. To: A K A Stone (#75)
Just curious and don't want to look it up. Paste it please if you have time.
Mad dog gets
"calibrated..."
#81. To: Capitalist Eric (#80)
#82. To: A K A Stone (#81)
#83. To: Capitalist Eric (#71)
The government actively interferes in the market, at ALL levels. They do this through taxation. Now, with the actual TOTAL tax rate at something like 60%, the natural result is low productivity, low manufacturing, high unemployment and high debt.
#84. To: war (#76)
To: A K A Stone Gross Income Defined
The US Supreme Court Definition of Income
by M. Randolph Hamilton
updated 10/15/2008
Afterwards, and evidently in recognition of the limitation upon the taxing power of Congress thus determined, the Sixteenth Amendment was adopted, in words lucidly expressing the object to be accomplished:
Congress cannot by any definition it may adopt conclude the matter, since it cannot by legislation alter the Constitution, from which alone it derives its power to legislate, and within whose limitations alone that power can be lawfully exercised.
The government, although basing its argument upon the definition as quoted, placed chief emphasis upon the word 'gain,' which was extended to include a variety of meanings; while the significance of the next three words was either overlooked or misconceived. 'Derived-from- capital'; 'the gain-derived-from-capital,' etc. Here we have the essential matter: not a gain accruing to capital; not a growth or increment of value in the investment; but a gain, a profit, something of exchangeable value, proceeding from the property, severed from the capital, however invested or employed, and coming in, being 'derived'-that is, received or drawn by the recipient (the taxpayer) for his separate use, benefit and disposal- that is income derived from property. Nothing else answers the description.
Yet it is plain, we think, that by the true intent and meaning of the act the entire proceeds of a mere conversion of capital assets were not to be treated as income. Whatever difficulty there may be about a precise and scientific definition of 'income,' it imports, as used here, something entirely distinct from principal or capital either as a subject of taxation or as a measure of the tax; conveying rather the idea of gain or increase arising from corporate activities.
We must reject in this case, as we have rejected in cases arising under the Corporation Excise Tax Act of 1909 (Doyle, Collector, v. Mitchell Brothers Co., 247 U.S. 179, 38 Sup. Ct. 467, 62 L. Ed. --, and Hays, Collector, v. Gauley Mountain Coal Co., 247 U.S. 189, 38 Sup. Ct. 470, 62 L. Ed. --, decided May 20, 1918), the broad content submitted in behalf of the government that all receipts- everything that comes in-are income within the proper definition of the term 'gross income,' and that the entire proceeds of a conversion of capital assets, in whatever form and under whatever circumstances accomplished, should be treated as gross income. Certainly the term 'income' has no broader meaning in the 1913 act than in that of 1909 (see Stratton's Independence v. Howbert, 231 U.S. 399, 416, 417 S., 34 Sup. Ct. 136), and for the present purpose we assume there is no difference in its meaning as used in the two acts.
Conclusion
the word 'income' as used in the Sixteenth Amendment and in the Income Tax Act we are considering does not include the gain from capital realized by a single isolated sale of property,
Mad dog gets
"calibrated..."
#85. To: lucysmom (#83)
Copied from http://www.criminalgovernment.com/docs/planks.html
Mad dog gets
"calibrated..."
#86. To: Capitalist Eric (#72)
Please provide the specific law that says the money we earn from work (aka wages or salaries) are considered "income."
#87. To: Capitalist Eric (#85)
Aha. I understand, now.
#88. To: Capitalist Eric (#84)
You cited the Internal Revenue Code.
#89. To: Capitalist Eric (#84)
(Edited)
the word 'income' as used in the Sixteenth Amendment and in the Income Tax Act we are considering does not include the gain from capital realized by a single isolated sale of property,
#90. To: war (#88)
The 16th amendment removed the apportionment requirement for direct taxes.
The term income is defined nowhere in Title 26 of the US Code, which is the law that relates to the "income" tax.
Mad dog gets
"calibrated..."
#91. To: lucysmom (#86)
The Constitution gives government the right to tax income derived from work (wages).
Mad dog gets
"calibrated..."
#92. To: war (#82)
case law
#93. To: Capitalist Eric (#90)
Show me the court case where that is stated.
#94. To: war (#88)
The 16th amendment removed the apportionment requirement for direct taxes.
#95. To: All (#94)
#96. To: A K A Stone (#92)
I was checking the constitution and it said nothing about case law.
#97. To: lucysmom (#87)
(Edited)
I thought you were smarter than that.
Mad dog gets
"calibrated..."
#98. To: Capitalist Eric (#90)
Now that you've entertained me, and I've had my fun, you're back to bozo.
#99. To: war (#96)
#100. To: A K A Stone (#94)
#101. To: A K A Stone (#94)
Can you give me a list of the Senators and congressmen who voted for it? I don't think 2/3 voted for it.
Mad dog gets
"calibrated..."
#102. To: A K A Stone (#99)
(Edited)
#103. To: A K A Stone, mcgowanjm (#81)
...we better pay or they will come and kill us or take all our stuff away and imprison us.
Mad dog gets
"calibrated..."
#104. To: A K A Stone (#94)
Also could you tell me which states ratified it. I don't think 2/3 did that either.
2. Kentucky (February 8, 1910)
3. South Carolina (February 19, 1910)
4. Illinois (March 1, 1910)
5. Mississippi (March 7, 1910)
6. Oklahoma (March 10, 1910)
7. Maryland (April 8, 1910)
8. Georgia (August 3, 1910)
9. Texas (August 16, 1910)
10. Ohio (January 19, 1911)
11. Idaho (January 20, 1911)
12. Oregon (January 23, 1911)
13. Washington (January 26, 1911)
14. Montana (January 27, 1911)
15. Indiana (January 30, 1911)
16. California (January 31, 1911)
17. Nevada (January 31, 1911)
18. South Dakota (February 1, 1911)
19. Nebraska (February 9, 1911)
20. North Carolina (February 11, 1911)
21. Colorado (February 15, 1911)
22. North Dakota (February 17, 1911)
23. Michigan (February 23, 1911)
24. Iowa (February 24, 1911)
25. Kansas (March 2, 1911)
26. Missouri (March 16, 1911)
27. Maine (March 31, 1911)
28. Tennessee (April 7, 1911)
29. Arkansas (April 22, 1911), after having previously rejected the amendment
30. Wisconsin (May 16, 1911)
31. New York (July 12, 1911)
32. Arizona (April 3, 1912)
33. Minnesota (June 11, 1912)
34. Louisiana (June 28, 1912)
35. West Virginia (January 31, 1913)
36. Delaware (February 3, 1913)
38. Wyoming (February 3, 1913)
39. New Jersey (February 4, 1913)
40. Vermont (February 19, 1913)
41. Massachusetts (March 4, 1913)
42. New Hampshire (March 7, 1913), after rejecting the amendment on March 2, 1911
Rhode Island
Utah
Pennsylvania
Virginia
#105. To: Skip Intro (#104)
(Edited)
#106. To: A K A Stone (#94)
Amendments only become part of the constitution of 2/3 of states, 2/3 of senate and 2/3 of house vote for it.
#107. To: war (#105)
Not sure but I went through this with him early on here. It may have been over the 14th...either way...shine on Harvest Moon...
#108. To: war (#98)
I've humiliated you once again.
So bye, assshole.
Mad dog gets
"calibrated..."
#109. To: Capitalist Eric (#90)
#110. To: Capitalist Eric (#108)
#111. To: Skip Intro (#104)
According to the United States Government Printing Office, the following states ratified the amendment...
Can you give me a list of the Senators and congressmen who voted for it? I don't think 2/3 voted for it.
Mad dog gets
"calibrated..."
#112. To: Abu el Banat (#110)
Not to mention the CAPS.
Mad dog gets
"calibrated..."
#113. To: Abu el Banat (#109)
Your large fonts and bolding coupled with underlining has me thinking twice about what you tax nuts say.
Mad dog gets
"calibrated..."
#114. To: Capitalist Eric (#113)
#115. To: Abu el Banat (#114)
I no have education.
-- Benjamin Franklin.I have inspiration.
If I was educated I would be a damn fool.
Mad dog gets
"calibrated..."
#116. To: Skip Intro (#104)
#117. To: Capitalist Eric (#97)
You staunchly defend the practice of the government STEALING money from my pocket.
#118. To: lucysmom (#117)
Mad dog gets
"calibrated..."
#119. To: Capitalist Eric (#108)
#120. To: lucysmom (#117)
It appears to me that you want all the blessings, protections, and opportunity of a civilized community without paying the price.
Mad dog gets
"calibrated..."
#121. To: Capitalist Eric (#118)
Do you understand the words "excise" and "apportionment?"
#122. To: Capitalist Eric (#80)
Income tax is an excise tax on the profit from ones' investments. This can only occur as a corporation, NOT as an individual...
#123. To: Capitalist Eric (#118)
Do you understand the words "excise" and "apportionment?"
#124. To: Capitalist Eric (#120)
You don't know SHIT about what I want.
#125. To: A K A Stone (#116)
(Edited)
Your list isn't accurate and doesn't take into account many things.
#126. To: Capitalist Eric (#115)
#127. To: Abu el Banat (#109)
#128. To: war (#125)
#129. To: A K A Stone (#116)
Your list isn't accurate and doesn't take into account many things.
#130. To: A K A Stone (#128)
"When did Ohio become a state?"
#131. To: Ferret Mike (#130)
#132. To: Ferret Mike (#130)
#133. To: Skip Intro (#129)
You're crazy as a loon, you know. None of what you're babbling about has a thing to do with what I posted.
#134. To: A K A Stone, *It Happened in Ohio* (#131)
#135. To: A K A Stone (#131)
Then why did congressman George Bender in 1953 propose and pass a bill to make Ohio a state?
#136. To: A K A Stone (#128)
#137. To: A K A Stone (#131)
And why did Eisenhower sign the ex post facto bill on Aug 7, 1953?
#138. To: lucysmom (#122)
You've got stuff really mixed up there.
Mad dog gets
"calibrated..."
#139. To: war (#137)
That's not an ex post facto law.
#140. To: Abu el Banat (#126)
(Edited)
Marley said the whole thing. And you won't be able to be educated until you dump all your quotes, stop reading Lew and start thinking for yourself. I doubt that'll happen.
Mad dog gets
"calibrated..."
#141. To: Capitalist Eric (#138)
So sorry, but YOU are all fucked up.
#142. To: lucysmom (#141)
The big bad government has the power to tax. The founding fathers intended the government they created to have the power to tax...
WRONG!!!!
Mad dog gets
"calibrated..."
#143. To: lucysmom (#141)
Mad dog gets
"calibrated..."
#144. To: All (#143)
Mad dog gets
"calibrated..."
#145. To: Crapitalist Erica (#138)
#146. To: A K A Stone (#139)
#147. To: Capitalist Eric (#142)
(Edited)
Who said "the power to tax, is the power to destroy"...?
#148. To: Capitalist Eric (#144)
#149. To: war (#146)
#150. To: war (#148)
#151. To: Capitalist Eric (#140)
The current list of books I am reading are written by Richard Weaver, Anthony Debons, Thomas Kuhn, Daniel Chandler, Michael Crichton, Clifford Geertz, Hofstede and Sonja Foss (et al).
#152. To: Capitalist Eric, A K A Stone, All (#103)
...we better pay or they will come and kill us or take all our stuff away and imprison us.
#153. To: A K A Stone (#149)
They never voted to make Ohio a state in 1803.
#154. To: All (#153)
#155. To: war (#153)
There was a "problem" with how the ratfication was recorded by the US Congress
#156. To: war (#154)
#157. To: A K A Stone (#155)
Problem was they voted on what the boundaries would be. But they didn't vote to make Ohio a state. Ohio became a state in 1953 or they wouldn't have voted in 1953 to make Ohio a state.
#158. To: Abu el Banat (#151)
Boring!!!! I bet there isn't a picture in any of those crapfests. Even their names sound stupid.
LMAO!!!!
Mad dog gets
"calibrated..."
#159. To: Capitalist Eric (#142)
WRONG!!!!
#160. To: Capitalist Eric (#144)
Updated signature, to reflect the addition to the "you're a waste of good oxygen" list.
#161. To: lucysmom (#159)
#162. To: Abu el Banat (#161)
#163. To: Abu el Banat (#161)
(Edited)
lol, awesome answer
Mad dog gets
"calibrated..."
#164. To: Capitalist Eric (#163)
#165. To: Capitalist Eric (#163)
#166. To: A K A Stone (#155)
(Edited)
#167. To: Abu el Banat (#165)
#168. To: Abu el Banat (#165)
Face it, over-capitalizer, she kicked your ass.
Mad dog gets
"calibrated..."
#169. To: war (#166)
Here's the best explanation that I can find...
#170. To: Capitalist Eric (#168)
#171. To: A K A Stone (#169)
#172. To: war (#171)
#173. To: Fred Mertz (#172)
Watch out for earthquakes out there.
#174. To: Abu el Banat (#170)
Says the pool cleaner.
Mad dog gets
"calibrated..."
#175. To: Fred Mertz (#172)
#176. To: Capitalist Eric (#174)
#177. To: Abu el Banat (#176)
Mad dog gets
"calibrated..."
#178. To: Capitalist Eric (#177)
#179. To: Abu el Banat (#178)
Mad dog gets
"calibrated..."
#180. To: Capitalist Eric (#179)
#181. To: Abu el Banat (#180)
Mad dog gets
"calibrated..."
#182. To: Capitalist Eric (#181)
#183. To: Abu el Banat (#182)
I get it!!!!
#184. To: Capitalist Eric (#183)
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]