• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Could taxation kill our Bill of Rights?

Where does the power end?

  • Congress can now pass any law, so long as it's enforced only with taxation. Explain

    Votes: 3 30.0%

  • Congress still has a limit on the laws they can pass. Explain

    Votes: 7 70.0%
  • Total voters
    10
TurtleDude said:
But you want the following

1) everyone to pay at least 5% more

2) the tax on dividends to go from 15% to up to 40%

3) same with LTCG

4) death taxes to be the same as income taxes meaning no one million or 5 million dollar exemption

5) those making more than the FICA ceiling paying 7% on every penny they earn

so you do want to feed the government billions more and you want the rich to suffer HUGE tax increases
Click to expand...

The words RICH and SUFFER, in the same sentence.....what a joke....only in America....:roll:
 
UtahBill said:
The words RICH and SUFFER, in the same sentence.....what a joke....only in America....:roll:
Click to expand...



so you don't think a tax bill potentially three times higher would clause suffering?

class envy is so pathetic
 
The court decided that people have a constitutional right to not buy a service, hence why they struck down the commerce clause argument. The right to associate or not associate with anyone is a constitutionally guaranteed right.

Yet despite this, the court ruled that government could tax people simply for exercising their right to not associate with insurance companies and not buy a product. If Congress can tax people who exercise this right, then they can tax people who exercise their freedom of speech in a certain way. The precedent is set for future interpretation. The courts have ruled that the taxation powers of Congress supercede individual liberty.
 
Last edited:
fredmertzz said:
For example, given the recent ACA ruling, what would stop Congress from creating the following 'tax':

"All citizens will have a 5% tax increase on their earned income. Likewise, if those citizens are not found to have spoken or written negatively about Barack Obama during the calendar year, they will receive a 5% tax credit"
Click to expand...

This is a completely reasonable analysis of the long-term effects of the healthcare ruling.
 
TurtleDude said:
so you don't think a tax bill potentially three times higher would clause suffering?

class envy is so pathetic
Click to expand...

you mean wealth envy....you may have more money than me, but not more class:2razz:
 
TurtleDude said:
Fair taxation being everyone pay the same since they each have the same citizenship rights?

or fair being each paying the same amount out of every dollar they have for the government?
Click to expand...

Fair being according to ABILITY to PAY as Thomas Jefferson envisioned. Notice his belief in the need to limit "inequality of property". This has been something we have understood since the beginning and the more we followed it the more prosperous we became. It is very unamerican to question the validity of progressive taxation, it has been so admired that it has been implemented in nearly every free country in the world.

Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
TurtleDude said:
Uh you are wrong. How many times have lefties posted that swill that taxes are the cost of citizenship.
Click to expand...

Uh, taxes are the cost of citizenship. Unless you want to live in Somalia during the 90s. A citizen requires a state. A state requires at least the bare minimum of defense to ensure sovereignty. Therefore, to maintain citizenship, sovereignty must be ensured therefore requiring some level of taxes. Don't want citizenship? Don't have a state. Hence 1990s Somalia.
 
TurtleDude said:
so you don't think a tax bill potentially three times higher would clause suffering?

class envy is so pathetic
Click to expand...

You inspire many negative emotions, TD, but envy is not one of them. Your primary interjections against valid concerns over systemic flaws in the functioning of our country's economic machinery are belittling ad hominen attacks. Achieving envy (and/or any modicum of respect) requires accomplishments greater than sophomoric and pedestrian internet bluster.
 
Lakryte said:
The court decided that people have a constitutional right to not buy a service, hence why they struck down the commerce clause argument. The right to associate or not associate with anyone is a constitutionally guaranteed right.

Yet despite this, the court ruled that government could tax people simply for exercising their right to not associate with insurance companies and not buy a product. If Congress can tax people who exercise this right, then they can tax people who exercise their freedom of speech in a certain way. The precedent is set for future interpretation. The courts have ruled that the taxation powers of Congress supercede individual liberty.
Click to expand...

Actually, I think I will have to take some time to consider whether I agree with this. At first blush, I see your point. I would even possibly embellish your point by adding "... The thing that people are missing is that a simple tax is entirely different than a tax which penalizes. Congresses power to tax doesn't include the option of using taxation to penalize in order to do an end run around the commerce clause. A person contemplating the granting of the power to tax certainly wouldn't envision it as a way to undo limitations created by other parts of the Constitution. Such a notion would only be concocted after the fact."

Still, it irks me that the Conservative justices have suddenly decided the Commerce clause limits the power of government. They certainly don't seem to think it provides much narrowness when it is a conservative law which is under scrutiny. It is the lack of sticking to principles that bothers me the most. Interpret the thing with one set of principles or the other, so that we clearly know when it needs to be changed and when it doesn't. I concede there has been activism on the liberal side, but the conservatives are no better. It is the inconsistency which is the fount of activism, and both sides do it.
 
Fletch said:
You are more anti-ideology actually. That is why I qualified my statement with "such as it is." As for the psychological reasons behind the adoption and adoration of leftism, you would have to ask a professional. But I would guess that the leading causes would be envy, immaturity, and fear brought on by a lack of self esteem.
Click to expand...

Yes - I am quite anti-ideology.

as to the rest ....You probably need a few more self help pop psychology books before you go analyzing people who you have met and only have been reading bits and pieces from for a few months. I understand Wayne Dyer is quite popular and that Dr. Phil fellow seems to have a following as well. Tony Robbins seems to strike a chord with some as well. Good hunting.
 
Last edited:
fredmertzz said:
Taking this SCOTUS decision to an inevitable (IMO) next step, that could come from either party: eliminating our Bill or Rights.

For example, given the recent ACA ruling, what would stop Congress from creating the following 'tax':

"All citizens will have a 5% tax increase on their earned income. Likewise, if those citizens are not found to have spoken or written negatively about Barack Obama during the calendar year, they will receive a 5% tax credit"

They aren't FORCIBLY taking away free speech. They're just taxing us and encouraging us how to speak to help prevent those taxes. They aren't FORCING us to buy Health Care. They're just encouraging us by giving us a tax break to a tax they just created.

I don't believe it will get this far today; I believe the people have the intelligence enough today to stop it. But with each generation accepting these new 'rights' of our government, such laws become more likely. Today, they wouldn't think of passing an amendment to prohibit alcohol or any other substance. Once, Congress understood that it was beyond their power to force such a thing without granting themselves such power within the constitution.

The 10th Amendment, IMO, is dead. Long live the King?
Click to expand...

Not anymore than the government already has.
 
iguanaman said:
Fair being according to ABILITY to PAY as Thomas Jefferson envisioned. Notice his belief in the need to limit "inequality of property". This has been something we have understood since the beginning and the more we followed it the more prosperous we became. It is very unamerican to question the validity of progressive taxation, it has been so admired that it has been implemented in nearly every free country in the world.
Click to expand...

quoting one guy who kept slaves and who did not incorporate a tax provision into the constitution is hardly proof. Why is ability to pay the fair reason? its the politically expedient position.
 
obvious Child said:
Uh, taxes are the cost of citizenship. Unless you want to live in Somalia during the 90s. A citizen requires a state. A state requires at least the bare minimum of defense to ensure sovereignty. Therefore, to maintain citizenship, sovereignty must be ensured therefore requiring some level of taxes. Don't want citizenship? Don't have a state. Hence 1990s Somalia.
Click to expand...

tell that to the people who claim that many people shouldn't have to pay income taxes. not people like me who are paying the way for millions of others who are freeloaders
 
ChunkySalsa said:
You inspire many negative emotions, TD, but envy is not one of them. Your primary interjections against valid concerns over systemic flaws in the functioning of our country's economic machinery are belittling ad hominen attacks. Achieving envy (and/or any modicum of respect) requires accomplishments greater than sophomoric and pedestrian internet bluster.
Click to expand...



a lot of words to say absolutely nothing
 
Dezaad said:
Actually, I think I will have to take some time to consider whether I agree with this. At first blush, I see your point. I would even possibly embellish your point by adding "... The thing that people are missing is that a simple tax is entirely different than a tax which penalizes. Congresses power to tax doesn't include the option of using taxation to penalize in order to do an end run around the commerce clause. A person contemplating the granting of the power to tax certainly wouldn't envision it as a way to undo limitations created by other parts of the Constitution. Such a notion would only be concocted after the fact."

Still, it irks me that the Conservative justices have suddenly decided the Commerce clause limits the power of government. They certainly don't seem to think it provides much narrowness when it is a conservative law which is under scrutiny. It is the lack of sticking to principles that bothers me the most. Interpret the thing with one set of principles or the other, so that we clearly know when it needs to be changed and when it doesn't. I concede there has been activism on the liberal side, but the conservatives are no better. It is the inconsistency which is the fount of activism, and both sides do it.
Click to expand...

you approach it from the wrong side of the coin. The commerce clause was not intended to Limit the government


the founders presumed a limited government that ONLY had the powers specifically delegated it. Thus the commerce clause's limitations were what powers the federal government WAS NOT GIVEN. The bill of rights specifically limited the federal government and many of the founders saw that as being superfluous
 
A hard right opinion seems to always claim the government's power must be found spelled out in the Constitution.

A more moderate opinion is the Constitution spelled out the categories our Federal government has control over the devil being in the details and for each new generation to address as the economy blossomed from farming to industrial to now electronic finance and beyond. Our society went from a patrician class dominating everything from wealth to voting to an uneasy power sharing with an expanded middle class.

While extremists attempt to weave a doom and gloom situation where the poor wealthy are stripped of all their money through ending all exemptions, others can point to continuing a wealth system where a few can be born into incredible power with no effort on their own. Like the nobility of old who maintained power by maintaining the legal/financial system to their benefit.

It reminds me of an old saying so my question is,

Which is better, teaching your offspring how to be a success or simply hand it to them? That old teach them to fish vs just making sure they have a life time supply of fish to play with?

To have a child who's claim to fame is inventing the lowly sticky note or an heiress who's claim to fame is the catch phase, "that's hot"?

The wealthy will never fall into the middle class due to taxation. Their race to the top of the leap where wealth beyond usefulness maybe slowed but our history to include during FDR's time never has them selling apples on the street corner-

Their collective greed and fiscal irresponsibility did that.
 
its not a hard right position-its the fundamental basis upon which the constitution was premised by those who wrote it.

I love the left who claims that we who work hard to give our children a better life are somehow hurting them while those dem voters who suck from the public tit are showing their kids how to become proper citizens.

collective greed is the best way to describe those who gain power by addicting so many voters to becoming public tit suckers
 
notquiteright said:
A hard right opinion seems to always claim the government's power must be found spelled out in the Constitution.

A more moderate opinion is the Constitution spelled out the categories our Federal government has control over the devil being in the details and for each new generation to address as the economy blossomed from farming to industrial to now electronic finance and beyond. Our society went from a patrician class dominating everything from wealth to voting to an uneasy power sharing with an expanded middle class.

While extremists attempt to weave a doom and gloom situation where the poor wealthy are stripped of all their money through ending all exemptions, others can point to continuing a wealth system where a few can be born into incredible power with no effort on their own. Like the nobility of old who maintained power by maintaining the legal/financial system to their benefit.

It reminds me of an old saying so my question is,

Which is better, teaching your offspring how to be a success or simply hand it to them? That old teach them to fish vs just making sure they have a life time supply of fish to play with?

To have a child who's claim to fame is inventing the lowly sticky note or an heiress who's claim to fame is the catch phase, "that's hot"?

The wealthy will never fall into the middle class due to taxation. Their race to the top of the leap where wealth beyond usefulness maybe slowed but our history to include during FDR's time never has them selling apples on the street corner-

Their collective greed and fiscal irresponsibility did that.
Click to expand...

But the simple truth is that those at the bottom can still better their postion in life by contributing only their productive efforts, IFF they choose to do so. Simply getting a piece of paper, e.g. a liberal arts degree, does nothing for anyone, yet those OWS loons profess that, in itself, was their GREAT contribution and expect a reward for that effort alone. Many see the guy who builds houses, repairs cars, prepares food, sells shoes or makes products in a factory as entitled to LESS than one who goes to college, and EARNS that "valuable" degree, yet neither produces goods for, nor provides any services to, anyone. You get rewarded for your actual contributions to society, not for expending mere directionless effort.
 
Taxing the rich will not ruin the rich kid's chances of a better life, that is yet another over the top extreme stance. I have ZERO doubt the rich will continue to get richer- it is the old world, nobility sense of entitlement the wealthy have when it comes to each generation having the opportunity to achieve rather than a select few born to wealth demanding a more and more slanted field of play. Nothing suggested for the balancing of our budget will strip the wealthy of their mansions, jets, vacation homes and most of what they keep hidden overseas.

While I can see the noble class seeing much of the social safety net as 'tit sucking', it is another clique throw out there to belittle.

I would say the INTERPRETATION of our Constitution can go many ways, the extreme right have their opinion of what the patrician agrarian Founders meant, actually put in the Constitution, wrote at length after the ratification. Those who see a more moderate path see Congress was given the power of taxation well before any amendments were tacked on. See much of the Constitution as a guide, not a Holy Document, it is to show us a way, not put a limit on, the growth of a nation from some small coastal strip to a nation stretching from sea to shining sea and a strong International Power.

Before the usual knee jerk right wing rant attack on my lean... I swore my life to support and defend the Constitution so it does mean alot to me, and I was willing to do more than type about it. Men have died so the Constitution may live on, and live it does, it isn't frozen in time and for much of our laws it doesn't need to be amended to guide the nation. It should reflect our times and be seen from OUR POV, not the Founders who couldn't for see the rise of an Industrial power or what was a hated institution of their day, a monopoly, being the ideal business model for our nation.
 
tell me why a group that makes 22% of the income and yet pays more than 40% of the progressive income and estate taxes, need to pay more when NO OTHER Group pays more of the income tax burden than their share of the income?



have you ever figured out that high income taxes and death taxes insulate the uber rich and prevent others from gaining the status?
 
TurtleDude said:
tell me why a group that makes 22% of the income and yet pays more than 40% of the progressive income and estate taxes, need to pay more when NO OTHER Group pays more of the income tax burden than their share of the income?

have you ever figured out that high income taxes and death taxes insulate the uber rich and prevent others from gaining the status?
Click to expand...

By the same token, does the VALUE of the work done by the top 10% REALLY exceed the VALUE of the work done by the bottom 10% by several hundred times? There is much validitiy to the argument that income disparity is NOT proportional to the VALUE of the work being performed. This situation may be easily seen by looking at the pay of a trade worker compared to that of an office worker. I am not saying that this is "by design" or totally "unfair", but one must look at the trends, to see that wages at the bottom have stagnated and have been overcome by inflation, while those "wages" at the top have risen by far MORE than the general rate of inflation.
 
Last edited:
notquiteright said:
Taxing the rich will not ruin the rich kid's chances of a better life, that is yet another over the top extreme stance. I have ZERO doubt the rich will continue to get richer- it is the old world, nobility sense of entitlement the wealthy have when it comes to each generation having the opportunity to achieve rather than a select few born to wealth demanding a more and more slanted field of play. Nothing suggested for the balancing of our budget will strip the wealthy of their mansions, jets, vacation homes and most of what they keep hidden overseas.

While I can see the noble class seeing much of the social safety net as 'tit sucking', it is another clique throw out there to belittle.

I would say the INTERPRETATION of our Constitution can go many ways, the extreme right have their opinion of what the patrician agrarian Founders meant, actually put in the Constitution, wrote at length after the ratification. Those who see a more moderate path see Congress was given the power of taxation well before any amendments were tacked on. See much of the Constitution as a guide, not a Holy Document, it is to show us a way, not put a limit on, the growth of a nation from some small coastal strip to a nation stretching from sea to shining sea and a strong International Power.

Before the usual knee jerk right wing rant attack on my lean... I swore my life to support and defend the Constitution so it does mean alot to me, and I was willing to do more than type about it. Men have died so the Constitution may live on, and live it does, it isn't frozen in time and for much of our laws it doesn't need to be amended to guide the nation. It should reflect our times and be seen from OUR POV, not the Founders who couldn't for see the rise of an Industrial power or what was a hated institution of their day, a monopoly, being the ideal business model for our nation.
Click to expand...

You mistake a change in the NATURE of the private economy to need changes in the NATURE of the federal government. The two are NOT related. The taxation of a citizen's income FROM ALL SOURCES (16th amendment), does NOT mean based on how that income is LATER spent (that SHOULD BE protected by the 14th amnendment, as EQUAL protection of the law), yet gov't has TAKEN that power, not granted by the constitution and run WILD with it. We now have FAR more FIT law about credits, dedcutions and exclusions, BASED on how the income was LATER SPENT, than about how to tax the INCOME itself. Federal power creep was seen from DAY ONE, and the constitution WISELY sought to limit it.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
By the same token, does the VALUE of the work done by the top 10% REALLY exceed the VALUE of the work done by the bottom 10% by several hundred times? There is much validitiy to the argument that income disparity is NOT proportional to the VALUE of the work being performed. This situation may be easily seen by looking at the pay of a trade worker compared to that of an office worker. I am not saying that this is "by design" or totally "unfair", but one must look at the trends, to see that wages at the bottom have stagnated and have been overcome by inflation, while those "wages" at the top have risen by far MORE than the general rate of inflation.
Click to expand...

the market seems to think so and that is far less artificial than some government bureautards saying otherwise.
 
TurtleDude said:
the market seems to think so and that is far less artificial than some government bureautards saying otherwise.
Click to expand...

Those in CONGRESS are paid quite well to agree with you, other than that, what "market force" makes a lawyer worth $150/hour? If laws were made UNDERSTANDABLE, then might we not need $150/hour lawyers to "interpret" them?
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Those in CONGRESS are paid quite well to agree with you, other than that, what "market force" makes a lawyer worth $150/hour? If laws were made UNDERSTANDABLE, then might we not need $150/hour lawyers to "interpret" them?
Click to expand...
150 an hour? that's very low in the circles I deal with. But I agree-we have far too many lawyers causing far too many costs to be imposed on the private sector. good lawyers will always be needed, bad ones are parasites- we need to close about 2/3ds of the law schools or make passing the bar far far tougher.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom