World Politics

[Anonymous]

adam smith...and his "invisible hand" via the free market....good thinker...but even at the end he thought the whole invisible hand idea to be pure bull****...Marx read history so much better...and that came from ethics as well...Marx as an economist is pretty much spot on...your work should be equal to your pay and when that gets perverted things go askew...even via the markets

 

[Bala Verde]

The argument is that a national sales tax is a direct tax to the consumer, and as such, violate Article 1, Section 9, Clause 5.

Article 1, Section 9, Clause 5 reads:

No capitation, or other direct, tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken. Source Cornell Law

I don't see how a national sales tax can be considered a direct tax, as the tax is collected by the producer or seller of a good or service, after which it is conferred to Government. In effect, it would constitute an excise or indirect tax, and therefore does not fall under the constitutional provision you are referring to.

Furthermore:

In the last case [Hylton v. United States], the Court took pains to state that it regarded the term “direct taxes” as having acquired a definite and fixed meaning, to wit, capitation taxes, and taxes on land.1747 Then, almost one hundred years after the Hylton case, the famous[p.354]case of Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan & Trust Co.1748 arose under the Income Tax Act of 1894.1749 Undertaking to correct “a century of error,” the Court held, by a vote of five–to–four, that a tax on income from property was a direct tax within the meaning of the Constitution and hence void because not apportioned according to the census.Source Cornell Law

In other words,
1) Direct taxes are limited - by Supreme Court jurisprudence - to capitation taxes, and taxes on land.
2) Even when something is considered a direct tax, it can still be constitutional if it is apportioned according to the census.

I could be wrong, as I don't know anything about US constitutional law, but I would think the aforementioned passages are pretty clear.

 

[usedtobefast]

Article 1, Section 9, Clause 5 reads:



I don't see how a national sales tax can be considered a direct tax, as the tax is collected by the producer or seller of a good or service, after which it is conferred to Government. In effect, it would constitute an excise or indirect tax, and therefore does not fall under the constitutional provision you are referring to.

Furthermore:



In other words,
1) Direct taxes are limited - by Supreme Court jurisprudence - to capitation taxes, and taxes on land.
2) Even when something is considered a direct tax, it can still be constitutional if it is apportioned according to the census.

I could be wrong, as I don't know anything about US constitutional law, but I would think the aforementioned passages are pretty clear.

sales tax is collected at the point of purchase, however the retail collector must then forward that same amount to the government . since it is a public
collection of said money, it seems pretty direct in it's origin. but don't quote
me, i am not an expert.

 

[zhumin]

Should wear cycling shorts

Should wear cycling shorts
Currently do trade a lot of professional cycling apparel manufacturers, brand there are many, of course, quality is also quite a mixed bag, foreign trade things this way, the good thing indeed but not a lot, to see you have a pair of eye; course, there are domestic own brand, currently the largest is jaggad, product line is very wide. Said the two ads, I have been doing is jaggad the brand, is responsible for quality and good to say, the price is high.

ride-dress are generally within the pad will not be very difficult to be elliptic, and if there is estimated to be riding posture or position of center of gravity of the wrong place, I am riding in three days of Qingdao, the buttocks to nothing, to the shoulders (old injury), wrist, waist hurt's. Should not feel a bit short, our current day is 80 - 100KM, wearing a very comfortable riding shorts, mainly remember half an hour in the car Tai Tai buttocks, preferably an hour off to rest 5 -- 10 minutes

I have one that is more concerned about the comfort level - though I am also poor, but this thing riding shorts, buy good estimate on the White bought, so the wound to his buttocks should also buy a good point.

Tight and loose on the issue, in addition to the comfort and beauty, is not it right there, tights trousers also take advantage of it (of course, right leg)?
On the first question, wearing so many is not too troublesome 呀?
On the second question, I choose pant.
Personal feeling a little better, or riding pants shorts, cycling shorts and pants can reduce the resistance? Is a drop, riding shorts and pants is good, as long as the body is good or cycling shorts and trousers, to reduce air resistance. Of course, it is pure riding a bicycle and if coupled with outdoor activities, it would not know.

*** is grinding out, first of all to choose the size of the frame suited to their body, another by adjusting the seat height and riding position, often riding to adjust the beginning of riding must wear their bottoms to adapt to a fine.

The advantages of riding wear tight-fitting, not a drive to reduce air resistance, quick-drying fabric breathable sweat, inner mat is commonly used coolmax, for me personally difficult to distinguish between true and false, then no matter how thick mats even if the sweat will damp , but does dry fast.

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

Top 10% pays 65%
next 15% pays 18%
next 25% pays 13%
bottom 50% pays 4%
It seems unfair to the richest people until you consider the distribution of wealth figures and then you see that the richest don't pay as high a percentage of their money in taxes as the middle class does.

I think something lost on people here is right in front of their eyes:

The super wealthy in this country now have so very much more money than the working poor, and the middle class (which is now the bottom 90% or so) that they of course pay more volume of taxes, as they have all the damned money and the people at the bottom have little or nothing left.

It strikes me as odd that some of the so called "conservatives" would have this number even further in the direction that it is. That somehow we should have the super rich pay less taxes on the millions they already have, and the poor who are barely keeping their heads above water and teeter on the edge of bankruptcy, foreclosure, homelessness, etc. should somehow pay more. And that by harshly punishing them like this, it will somehow motivate them to be more talented or intelligent or something, as if they're not working hard enough already just to stay alive.

 

[rhubroma]

I think something lost on people here is right in front of their eyes:

The super wealthy in this country now have so very much more money than the working poor, and the middle class (which is now the bottom 90% or so) that they of course pay more volume of taxes, as they have all the damned money and the people at the bottom have little or nothing left.

It strikes me as odd that some of the so called "conservatives" would have this number even further in the direction that it is. That somehow we should have the super rich pay less taxes on the millions they already have, and the poor who are barely keeping their heads above water and teeter on the edge of bankruptcy, foreclosure, homelessness, etc. should somehow pay more. And that by harshly punishing them like this, it will somehow motivate them to be more talented or intelligent or something, as if they're not working hard enough already just to stay alive.

It is obvious that if someone is able to earn a few billion dollars, whereas millions upon millions of others are earning only 30-35K - and thus are just getting by form month to month - that while their taxable income will be infinitely lower than that of the billionaire's, it will also be just as proportionately more painfull to digest (especially without socialized healthcare, childcare, education, etc.) from paycheck to pay check.

And it is always to be remembered that the more one earns, the more he will be asked to give. However, at the end of the day: a billionaire is still a billionaire.

In Italy it is said that anyone who makes that much money, can't have done so completely legally. There is always some law to evade, fiscal manipulation at work, hidden deals, political bribery, tangent payments, etc. In Europe, for example, Bill Gates was condemnd as a monopolist, which, naturally, is against the rules of capitalism. Yet in the States he was never condemned because an icon of the "self made man." A myth which is evidently more powerful than the rule of free market competition, which the European courts said Microsoft brazenly violated.

I feel no pain, consequently, for the gargantuan sums the billionaires of the world are asked to pay by government (on income that they haven't placed in safekeeping in the various fiscal paradises of the banking galaxy at any rate), because I retain it to be a small consolation in terms of social justice for the crimes they have been able to get away with in the process of accumulating their wealth. And since it would take me several hundred million lives on this planet (when I'm quite satisfied with just one thank you) to even come close to earning what they have in just one: I feel my suspicious eye toward them is completely justified. Or perhaps I have simply been living in Italy for too long. But in any case all that wealth would certainly ruin my style. I prefer the good company of simple folk to the Rothchilds of the universe.

 

[Anonymous]

It is obvious that if someone is able to earn a few billion dollars, whereas millions upon millions of others are earning only 30-35K - and thus are just getting by form month to month - that while their taxable income will be infinitely lower than that of the billionaire's, it will also be just as proportionately more painfull to digest (especially without socialized healthcare, childcare, education, etc.) from paycheck to pay check.

And it is always to be remembered that the more one earns, the more he will be asked to give. However, at the end of the day: a billionaire is still a billionaire.

In Italy it is said that anyone who makes that much money, can't have done so completely legally. There is always some law to evade, fiscal manipulation at work, hidden deals, political bribery, tangent payments, etc. In Europe, for example, Bill Gates was condemnd as a monopolist, which, naturally, is against the rules of capitalism. Yet in the States he was never condemned because an icon of the "self made man." A myth which is evidently more powerful than the rule of free market competition, which the European courts said Microsoft brazenly violated.

I feel no pain, consequently, for the gargantuan sums the billionaires of the world are asked to pay by government (those that they haven't placed in safekeeping in the various fiscal paradises of the banking galaxy at any rate), because I retain it to be a small consolation in terms of social justice for the crimes they have been able to get away with in the process of accumulating their wealth. And since it would take me several hundred million lives on this planet (when I'm quite satisfied with just one thank you) to even come close to earning what they have in just one: I feel my suspicious eye toward them is completely justified. Or perhaps I have simply been living in Italy for too long. But in any case all that wealth would certainly ruin my style. I prefer the good company of simple folk to the Rothchilds of the universe.

It always makes me want to puke when I hear how badly the wealthy are treated in this country. They control the political game in our country, and then try to convince us that they are victims of the system. They leave their money to their children who then claim to also be self made men or women. Then you have people like Warren Buffet who are at least willing to admit their reality. Those people at the CATO Institute must really hate that guy.

 

[Bala Verde]

They leave their money to their children who then claim to also be self made men or women.

Hmm, isn't inheritance a form of (often intra-familial) socialism?

If someone truly believes that everyone has equal and unlimited opportunities in society (the American Dream?), it wouldn't be hard to challenge any form of inheritance. Let's have it all taken away, and start with a clean slate. In the end, by virtue of society's constitution, it shouldn't matter anyway.

Then we are even ignoring the fact that their education, health care, culture and language might have positioned them ahead of others already.

 

[BroDeal]

A little OT, but I suspect that there will be some great entertainment to be had with the hissy fits conservatives are sure to throw over the movie Avatar. The fact that it will be a massive hit is sure to enrage the Faux News talking heads.

 

[Cobblestones]

Hmm, isn't inheritance a form of (often intra-familial) socialism?

If someone truly believes that everyone has equal and unlimited opportunities in society (the American Dream?), it wouldn't be hard to challenge any form of inheritance. Let's have it all taken away, and start with a clean slate. In the end, by virtue of society's constitution, it shouldn't matter anyway.

Then we are even ignoring the fact that their education, health care, culture and language might have positioned them ahead of others already.

But then, we wouldn't have ... Paris Hilton.

 

[titan_90]

But then, we wouldn't have ... Paris Hilton.

I could live with that

 

[Cobblestones]

I could live with that

Sure you could live, but wouldn't it be a life without joy?

Anyway, what's this about Avatar? I have no clue. Is it another 'Conservatives against Hollywood elite' BS? What's the movie about? Conservapedia is not up to date.

 

[titan_90]

I think something lost on people here is right in front of their eyes:

The super wealthy in this country now have so very much more money than the working poor, and the middle class (which is now the bottom 90% or so) that they of course pay more volume of taxes, as they have all the damned money and the people at the bottom have little or nothing left.

It strikes me as odd that some of the so called "conservatives" would have this number even further in the direction that it is. That somehow we should have the super rich pay less taxes on the millions they already have, and the poor who are barely keeping their heads above water and teeter on the edge of bankruptcy, foreclosure, homelessness, etc. should somehow pay more. And that by harshly punishing them like this, it will somehow motivate them to be more talented or intelligent or something, as if they're not working hard enough already just to stay alive.

Big Business and the conservitves want us scurrying around for scrapes and working three jobs so we are too busy to see or question reality. They believe in and want a two-class system. We have already been told in this thread that it is our privilege to work for them because it's their money at risk and have been told that the poor don't deserve health care because they are to lazy to get a job or three. The conservatives that are not rich are stupid or blind not to see this for themselves.

 

[CentralCaliBike]

If someone truly believes that everyone has equal and unlimited opportunities in society (the American Dream?), it wouldn't be hard to challenge any form of inheritance. Let's have it all taken away, and start with a clean slate. In the end, by virtue of society's constitution, it shouldn't matter anyway.

Sounds good - we have farms in this area, lots of them. The people who own the farms tend to be fairly well off. I guess we should tax them a lot more since they clearly are not paying their fair share. Then, when the parents die, we should make the estate sell off the property. Unfortunately not many people out there will be able to purchase the farm since we are taxing the all of the wealthy the profits enough to they cannot get that way.

In the meantime the guys who were paid to milk the cows, pick the oranges, drive the crop to the markets are now unemployed since there is no one to pay them. Also, the food which would have been produced by the farm is not going to make it into the markets, however, I am sure this will be covered by the surviving farmers who are not going to be allowed to become wealthy through inheritance, hard work, planning, or the purchasing and production of any product.

 

[Anonymous]

Sounds good - we have farms in this area, lots of them. The people who own the farms tend to be fairly well off. I guess we should tax them a lot more since they clearly are not paying their fair share. Then, when the parents die, we should make the estate sell off the property. Unfortunately not many people out there will be able to purchase the farm since we are taxing the all of the wealthy the profits enough to they cannot get that way.

In the meantime the guys who were paid to milk the cows, pick the oranges, drive the crop to the markets are now unemployed since there is no one to pay them. Also, the food which would have been produced by the farm is not going to make it into the markets, however, I am sure this will be covered by the surviving farmers who are not going to be allowed to become wealthy through inheritance, hard work, planning, or the purchasing and production of any product.

I am not trying to call you out personally or anything, but I would like to know what you think of taxation in light of the distribution of wealth. Is it really unfair considering that they are almost identical distributions? "Income" may be where the tax is derived, but the wealth amassed for that upper 1% still grows at a much faster rate than that of the bottom 50%. To also suggest that all of that wealth is up for grabs on a level playing field would be disingenuous. If 62 percent of the wealth is in play for 99% of the people, we are all rooting after the scraps from the same table. I am sorry, but to know that the wealthy will ALWAYS have the power to protect themselves in any way they deem necessary means that I will never stop believing that anyone under them that needs a bit of help (because lets face it, even if you partook of EVERY SINGLE government program available, you would still be living below the poverty line) should get it in a democracy. Especially considering that the poor also are have much less access to politicians than do those few at the other end of the spectrum.

Honestly, I do not understand why anyone would deny reality, and the reality is that the game is fixed. It might be the best game going, but that doesn't mean everyone has an equal shot. I will also note that the greatest prosperity for the greatest number of people occurred in the 20th century under mixed economies. That necessary mix appears to be socialist principles adopted by those economies considering that before their implementation, there were only 2 classes. The game has never been fair, and it never will be. However, rich people found out it was better to placate a bit when the other option is getting a bullet in the back of your head during a revolution. I can promise you that if we go back to what the modern conservative suggests, there will be blood. History has pretty clear examples if you want to look. Things never really change when it comes to that.

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

You're kidding about farmers, right? Most farms in the United States are now owned by giant companies like Monsanto, who has patented all the seeds and used patent infringement to sue and take over many farms.

Suggest you read Michael Pollen's book Omnivore's Dilemma and/or see the film Food, inc. Or just about any other current book/film on the subject. Even Fox would have a hard time spinning this one.

You're also collapsing anyone fairly well off making say, $90,000 a year, with CEO's making millions and millions and has more money than they could ever spend.

In theory, if Paris Hilton were to pay say, 10% more taxes, she'd not only still be filthy rich, she would still have her beauty to sell as a model, which is easy work and would pay her well enough to still live a very lavish lifestyle.

I also don't buy the idiom that the super wealthy spend that money to prop up the economy. Many of them hoard what they have, and aren't compelled to spend it anyway they have more than they ever need. And there's no difference in the amount of people employed building a 4th or 5th mansion for the super rich, and building 20 or 30 houses for the rest of us.

Again, I'm not talking about soaking them down to their last penny, only that it's absurd to say making them pay a little more, while something like one in six people now live under the poverty level. Supply side economics and neoconservativismto me has shown itself to be a failure as a general overall way to continually grow the economy.

 

[Anonymous]

You're kidding about farmers, right? Most farms in the United States are now owned by giant companies like Monsanto, who has patented all the seeds and used patent infringement to sue and take over many farms.

Suggest you read Michael Pollen's book Omnivore's Dilemma and/or see the film Food, inc. Or just about any other current book/film on the subject. Even Fox would have a hard time spinning this one.

You're also collapsing anyone fairly well off making say, $90,000 a year, with CEO's making millions and millions and has more money than they could ever spend.

In theory, if Paris Hilton were to pay say, 10% more taxes, she'd not only still be filthy rich, she would still have her beauty to sell as a model, which is easy work and would pay her well enough to still live a very lavish lifestyle.

I also don't buy the idiom that the super wealthy spend that money to prop up the economy. Many of them hoard what they have, and aren't compelled to spend it anyway they have more than they ever need. And there's no difference in the amount of people employed building a 4th or 5th mansion for the super rich, and building 20 or 30 houses for the rest of us.

Again, I'm not talking about soaking them down to their last penny, only that it's absurd to say making them pay a little more, while something like one in six people now live under the poverty level. Supply side economics and neoconservativismto me has shown itself to be a failure as a general overall way to continually grow the economy.

Yea, when the farmer is not allowed to save seed to plant the next year because Monsanto owns the patent on the genetic make-up is kind of tragic. Thank Clarence Thomas. Anyway, they don't even own their own seed anymore, and Monsonto will shut you down if try to get around their monopoly. Sounds like capitalism...oh wait, no, it doesn't. There have been few things in the last year that have angered me more than watching Food Inc. I ask any conservative to watch that film and then come tell me how their politicians and philosophy of capitalist markets fit in. Oh wait, it doesn't.

 

[hektoren]

Sounds good - we have farms in this area, lots of them. The people who own the farms tend to be fairly well off. I guess we should tax them a lot more since they clearly are not paying their fair share. Then, when the parents die, we should make the estate sell off the property. Unfortunately not many people out there will be able to purchase the farm since we are taxing the all of the wealthy the profits enough to they cannot get that way.

In the meantime the guys who were paid to milk the cows, pick the oranges, drive the crop to the markets are now unemployed since there is no one to pay them. Also, the food which would have been produced by the farm is not going to make it into the markets, however, I am sure this will be covered by the surviving farmers who are not going to be allowed to become wealthy through inheritance, hard work, planning, or the purchasing and production of any product.

Still haven't improved on your reading ability, then. He was merely pointing to the fact that the "American Dream" is seriously flawed. The notion that anybody can be what they want to be, by putting in the working-hours, talent and dedication is a hoax. It's not true in the good ol' Us of A, it's not true in Europe, it's not true anywhere, really. We're really not the captains of identical ships on our way to bliss. Some start out in yachts, some can't swim and you know it's true, so why not just shut up? As bigoted right-wing Americans go, you rank with the finest.

 

[CentralCaliBike]

The game has never been fair, and it never will be. However, rich people found out it was better to placate a bit when the other option is getting a bullet in the back of your head during a revolution. I can promise you that if we go back to what the modern conservative suggests, there will be blood. History has pretty clear examples if you want to look. Things never really change when it comes to that.

I have no argument with any of this. I do believe that the wealthy have the odds stacked in their favor, I just happen to believe that you take the elusive goal away from those who are not wealthy you will end up with far less production, and in the end a much weaker society. The wealthy may have the odds stacked in their favor, but they can end up losing it all as well from bad judgment or just pure bad luck - this actually should have happened in my opinion instead of the bail outs that we have put in place at the moment.

As for the blood issue, I believe you are correct but I do not think that blood is only the result from giving the modern conservative what they want - I see this as something that results from also giving to the modern liberal as well. Most of the rhetoric I have read hear about the evil wealthy people who are ruining the county sounds very familiar to me from reading history and how dictators and tyrants build their power base.

I personally do not see that the wealthy are any more or less burdened with human nature that everyone else, but I do believe that the potential to make wealth keeps the economic world alive.

 

[fatandfast]

Doesn't anybody live by "the guy with the most toys at the end wins" The property was already taxed when it was bought. All things my bicycles, motorcycle,dog, computer, toaster have all already been taxed first at my income level and then with a generous sales tax sometimes at 8.85 f.,king %.
Taxing farmers is no answer to anything. Putting the farmer out of business because his employees are abused and his products are unhealthy are full of poison is where we should start. We should go China on some of the azzbags. When a kid dies from eating bad lettuce,hamburger or strawberries start capping the producers.You will have to reload plenty of times before arriving at Monsanto or the USDA headquarters, It's not money it's morality. Guys on wall street stepping over a dying guy to cash their 400000 dollar bonus check.

 

[Anonymous]

I have no argument with any of this. I do believe that the wealthy have the odds stacked in their favor, I just happen to believe that you take the elusive goal away from those who are not wealthy you will end up with far less production, and in the end a much weaker society. The wealthy may have the odds stacked in their favor, but they can end up losing it all as well from bad judgment or just pure bad luck - this actually should have happened in my opinion instead of the bail outs that we have put in place at the moment.

As for the blood issue, I believe you are correct but I do not think that blood is only the result from giving the modern conservative what they want - I see this as something that results from also giving to the modern liberal as well. Most of the rhetoric I have read hear about the evil wealthy people who are ruining the county sounds very familiar to me from reading history and how dictators and tyrants build their power base.

I personally do not see that the wealthy are any more or less burdened with human nature that everyone else, but I do believe that the potential to make wealth keeps the economic world alive.

Very reasonable in my opinion. I have not problem with protections for capitalist principles, I simply believe that there is a need to incorporate socialist principles also. I think that is what we do, and historically Obama is far from instituting more of those principles than at least 4 others. If none of them sunk our ship, I don't think Obama will either. In fact, I would argue that tougher economic times require the adaptation of more socialist principles which will be tapered off as the economy strengthens.

As for the banks, the crappy thing is that there is no way to know what would have happened if they had collapsed. I think the fear of the unknown aided their demand of welfare. I can tell you that the psychological aspects of the economy would have been very negative, and panic is a terrible thing when it comes to fiscal reality. I also know that we are a society based on credit from top to bottom, east and west. Is it sustainable? I think from a strict numbers game, the answer is no. That doesn't mean it wont keep working for quite some time though.

Honestly, I can say that I have grown much more financially mature during the last year on a personal level. That has been a good thing all the way around.

 

[CentralCaliBike]

You're kidding about farmers, right? Most farms in the United States are now owned by giant companies like Monsanto, who has patented all the seeds and used patent infringement to sue and take over many farms.

I have heard the figures you cite a number of times by socialists radio programs (sometimes I listen to see what their side of the issues are). However, this claim is somewhat less than accurate.

http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Technical/nri/pubs/rca/appendixA.pdf

The truth is that only less than .05 percent of farms are non-family member corporations but that claim does not get people upset about rich and powerful stealing from the poor and downtrodden.

 

[CentralCaliBike]

I prefer the good company of simple folk to the Rothchilds of the universe.

As an aside to this conversation, are you familiar with what caused the Rothschild family to become wealthy?

 

[Hugh Januss]

Consevatives view Government as an evil thing that exists to "take" from them. The only time they want it is when it can protect them from someone (or something) else trying to "take" from them.
Liberals view Government as a medium for ensuring that all citizens at least have the posibility of living a happy and secure life, to protect and help the weak and disadvantaged, and provide for the common good and prosperity of all.

 

[CentralCaliBike]

Consevatives view Government as an evil thing that exists to "take" from them. The only time they want it is when it can protect them from someone (or something) else trying to "take" from them.
Liberals view Government as a medium for ensuring that all citizens at least have the posibility of living a happy and secure life, to protect and help the weak and disadvantaged, and provide for the common good and prosperity of all.

There are a number of conservatives that consider government the vehicle to protect and insure the physical safety of it's citizens. Their complaints start when it goes a great distance from that priority while at the same time giving less attention and resources to that basic need.