Reply With Quote
the exceptions (taxes that had an expiration date which were means to pay for war time) are not the rule.
Try harder next time.
Nobody is forcing you to give up your rights.
If you want individual rights, start your own gulch!!!!- Random Cuckowned
the exceptions (taxes that had an expiration date which were means to pay for war time) are not the rule.
Try harder next time.
Umm perhaps you should try harder. You were wrong. its okay it happens to us all, I am just saying that it is obvious that a lot of what you consider to be facts are just not true and perhaps you should reevaluate your position after uncovering the truth.
the cons utional amendment was in 1913 thats where you got that date from.
Where are you going with this?
lol.. you're an idiot. The times those taxes were levied they were challenged in court and ruled uncons utional.
The 16th ammendment wasn't just a formality dumbass, there were legal implications.
Right. Now it's cons utional.
I agree, the 16th ammendment accomplished that. Now that we established that.
We can now argue about whether it's ethical or moral.
For example..
Counting black slaves as a percentage of a whole individual was cons utional at one point, doesn't mean it was ethical at that time and it's no longer. It's always been unethical and a contradiction to the idea of holding all men as equals under the law.
Why?
Sounds pretty boring, Holden.
That's fine, i just suggested it. I'm not forcing anyone to debate it.
You said that we did not have our first income tax until 1913. That was wrong the first instance of a income tax levied was in the civil war. Whether or not it was challenged in cons utional grounds is besides the point.
didnt read through 12 pages
but dont you guys think the reason why real wages havnt caught up with inflation is because of legislated low wages thats still outdated thats not upto to date?
I think it reflects supply and demand labor force vs. jobs available.
U.S. Wealth Gap Between Young, Old Is Widest Ever
The wealth gap between younger and older Americans has stretched to the widest on record, worsened by a prolonged economic downturn that has wiped out job opportunities for young adults and saddled them with housing and college debt.
The typical U.S. household headed by a person age 65 or older has a net worth 47 times greater than a household headed by someone under 35, according to an analysis of census data released Monday.
While people typically ac ulate assets as they age, this wealth gap is now more than double what it was in 2005 and nearly five times the 10-to-1 disparity a quarter-century ago, after adjusting for inflation.
The analysis by the Pew Research Center reflects the impact of the economic downturn, which has hit young adults particularly hard. More are pursuing college or advanced degrees, taking on debt as they wait for the job market to recover. Others are struggling to pay mortgage costs on homes now worth less than when they were bought in the housing boom.
The report, coming out before the Nov. 23 deadline for a special congressional committee to propose $1.2 trillion in budget cuts over 10 years, casts a spotlight on a government safety net that has buoyed older Americans on Social Security and Medicare amid wider cuts to education and other programs, including cash assistance for poor families. Complaints about wealth inequality, high unemployment and student debt also have been front and center at Occupy Wall Street protests around the country.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/1...=Daily%20Brief
========
Repug/conservative reliable spin: young people are left-wing losers.
who gives a .
these kind of statistics are not conclusive
"who gives a ."
kids who went into debt to get a college education and now find they have very poor prospects of getting a job for many years.
the Banksters, the defenders of the Banksters, and the VRWC policies that let the Banksters up the planet
Everything set up so the Boomers have more than anyone else, and more than any preceding generation.
Go Figure.
Boomers = Worst. Generation. Ever.
Many boomers have been ed as bad as any other bull group you slander.
the 1% / 99% categorization is much more accurate since the vast majority of the boomers are in the 99%.
And the boomers are mostly worse off than their parents (who greatly thrived 1945 - 1975 until the VRWC swung into action), and will leave less to boomer children.
Seriously.
You used the logic that employees unhappy with their pay or conditions could leave their job.
Yet when it is pointed out to you that if you are unhappy with conditions in this country, ain't nothing stopping you from leaving, that same logic is invalid?
There are plenty of countries out there with no income taxes. Somalia comes to mind foremost.
Have fun with that.
Personally I don't think replacing an unaccountable big government with unaccountable big corporations is a good solution to the problem of unaccountable government.
"replacing an unaccountable big government with unaccountable big corporations"
those two have alloyed themselves into one, aka, the plutocratic corporatocracy.
Strong Majority Of Americans Believe Country Would Be Better Off With Less Income Inequality
– A strong majority (60 percent) of Americans agree that the country would be better off if the distribution of wealth was more equal, while 39 percent disagree.
– Seven in 10 (70 percent) Americans favor “the Buffett rule,” a proposal to increase the tax rate on Americans earning more than $1 million per year, compared to only 27 percent who oppose it.
– Overall, two-thirds (67 percent) of Americans favor increasing the minimum wage from $7.25 an hour to $10 an hour. Support for raising the minimum wage has remained stable since 2010.
http://www.alternet.org/newsandviews...me_inequality/
23 Mind-Blowing Facts About Income Inequality In America
http://www.businessinsider.com/new-c...-says-it-all-1
mechanical materialism rears is hoary head:http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2014/...f-the-day-134/Chart Of The Day
Jan 29 2014 @ 11:40am
If you don’t follow Tom Edsall’s columns in the NYT, you’re missing some of the best deep-dive policy pieces on the web. When Ezra Klein speaks of integrating context into news, it sounds a little luftmenschy in the abstract. But Edsall does it all the time in a simple column. His latest is a must-read on a new, and potentially debate-changing book on the accelerating rise of inequality around the world. The book is Thomas Piketty’s “Capital in the Twenty-First Century,” due out in the US this March, but already a sensation in France. Piketty talks about his book here.
What Piketty is proposing is that the twentieth century was an anomaly in the history of global capitalism:
The six decades between 1914 and 1973 stand out from the past and future, according to Piketty, because the rate of economic growth exceeded the after-tax rate of return on capital. Since then, the rate of growth of the economy has declined, while the return on capital is rising to its pre-World War I levels.
“If the rate of return on capital remains permanently above the rate of growth of the economy – this is Piketty’s key inequality relationship,” Milanovic writes in his review, it “generates a changing functional distribution of income in favor of capital and, if capital incomes are more concentrated than incomes from labor (a rather uncontroversial fact), personal income distribution will also get more unequal — which indeed is what we have witnessed in the past 30 years.”
That's figure 10.10 You really should compare it with figure 2.2.
http://piketty.pse.ens.fr/files/Pike...Capital21c.pdf
The great driver of inequality in USA has been the huge reductions in tax rates on capital returns, on corporations, on the wealthy, from about 1975. Rather than investing in the Real Economy, corporations and wealthy put their money in the financial market/casino where the returns, lightly taxed, are typically higher than returns in the Real Economy.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
