Speaking of unemployment
-
stilltrucking
- Posts: 20607
- Joined: October 24th, 2004, 12:29 pm
- Location: Oz or somepLace like Kansas
YES!!! Oh my God, yes. Someone else sees it? I'm not the only one? He is exactly letting them expose themselves and shoot themselves in the foot. This is absolutely what he is so brilliantly doing. And after barely a year even his supporters are now turning to detractors. I just hope he gets to work his mojo long enough for the thugs' gooses to actually get cooked.It is my personal belief that some sort of high-money powered group behind the scenes, paid it's way in to run the country to their benefit. . . I believe BHO will allow this group of ignorant thugs that have been imbalancing the American system of capitalism for the past few decades to reveal themselves, as he has been so brilliantly doing.
Peace,
Barry
-
Non Sum
Hi
SW: the absurd logic of no sum
how does less tax revenue create more tax revenue?
absurd
esplain the math lucy???????
NS: You appear to have confused the words; ‘income taxes’ with ‘tax revenue.’ The former is what is charged, and the latter is what is received. If I raise your charges, for the sin of making a dollar, to 70 cents from 30 cents, your income tax rate has just gone ‘up’ 40 cents. But, if you only send me 20 cents, then my tax revenue has just gone ‘down' 10 cents. I hope I made that clear. If not, please work with me in a friendly manner, and I’m sure we can solve it. Pax
Hi
HP: Plus, to talk on those levels is to talk down to most people and it kinda pisses me off as it seems insensitive, divisive, and even ignorant to a bigger reality.
NS: I’m unsure what it is that has made you feel that way, Hester? SW, and I, were speaking about taxes, and economics. What do you mean by “these levels”? Sorry, if I gave an unintended insult to anyone.
Hp: "if men were not inherently evil and greedy we would not need government"
NS: Too true. But, do you see the irony in that quote? I.e: governments are invariably composed of by “men,” therefore: it must follow that governments are also inherently evil and greedy.
HP: Let's keep the subject at a place the majority can relate to!
NS: Hard to respond to a silent majority’s unspoken subject.
Hi
Barry: But what this really means is that the finite tax burden is unfairly shouldered by the citizenry, while the business community gets the benefits all want from tax-supported governance (stability) without paying for it.
NS: Actually, businesses never pay any taxes.
Rather, they function as tax collectors, i.e. from the “citizenry.” How could it be otherwise?
If it costs you more to go to work than you get paid there, you stop going to work. Likewise, if your pet store (factory, whatever) costs are more than you need to make, you close up shop. Sure, first you try to cut costs, but wholesalers, landlords, they will only give up so much.
So, you take all of your costs, add a profit to make it worth the trouble, and there’s what you ‘must’ charge for your pet snakes. One of your costs is the tax charged on that profit you needed, so you figure that cost in too, and just like all the other costs, you pass it on in the final snake price. Raise you taxes 10%, and guess what you will ‘have to do’? Yep, snakes go up 10%, or Oregon loses a valuable source of retail snakes.
Barry: Have fun with it.
NS: Thanks, dude.
BTW: The butter is always lumpy.
SW: the absurd logic of no sum
how does less tax revenue create more tax revenue?
absurd
esplain the math lucy???????
NS: You appear to have confused the words; ‘income taxes’ with ‘tax revenue.’ The former is what is charged, and the latter is what is received. If I raise your charges, for the sin of making a dollar, to 70 cents from 30 cents, your income tax rate has just gone ‘up’ 40 cents. But, if you only send me 20 cents, then my tax revenue has just gone ‘down' 10 cents. I hope I made that clear. If not, please work with me in a friendly manner, and I’m sure we can solve it. Pax
Hi
HP: Plus, to talk on those levels is to talk down to most people and it kinda pisses me off as it seems insensitive, divisive, and even ignorant to a bigger reality.
NS: I’m unsure what it is that has made you feel that way, Hester? SW, and I, were speaking about taxes, and economics. What do you mean by “these levels”? Sorry, if I gave an unintended insult to anyone.
Hp: "if men were not inherently evil and greedy we would not need government"
NS: Too true. But, do you see the irony in that quote? I.e: governments are invariably composed of by “men,” therefore: it must follow that governments are also inherently evil and greedy.
HP: Let's keep the subject at a place the majority can relate to!
NS: Hard to respond to a silent majority’s unspoken subject.
Hi
Barry: But what this really means is that the finite tax burden is unfairly shouldered by the citizenry, while the business community gets the benefits all want from tax-supported governance (stability) without paying for it.
NS: Actually, businesses never pay any taxes.
Rather, they function as tax collectors, i.e. from the “citizenry.” How could it be otherwise?
If it costs you more to go to work than you get paid there, you stop going to work. Likewise, if your pet store (factory, whatever) costs are more than you need to make, you close up shop. Sure, first you try to cut costs, but wholesalers, landlords, they will only give up so much.
So, you take all of your costs, add a profit to make it worth the trouble, and there’s what you ‘must’ charge for your pet snakes. One of your costs is the tax charged on that profit you needed, so you figure that cost in too, and just like all the other costs, you pass it on in the final snake price. Raise you taxes 10%, and guess what you will ‘have to do’? Yep, snakes go up 10%, or Oregon loses a valuable source of retail snakes.
Barry: Have fun with it.
NS: Thanks, dude.
BTW: The butter is always lumpy.
-
hester_prynne
- Posts: 2363
- Joined: June 26th, 2006, 12:35 am
- Location: Seattle, Washington
- Contact:
Barry! So glad we are on the same page here!!!!!!!
NS I didn't mean to come off as angry or offended. I can see in rereading what I wrote it may have seemed that way. My point is just that most people, at least people I know, do not discuss current events in terms of taxes, revenues, stocks, governments.. It's more about how the quality of everything has shifted down. Products are shoddy yet still expensive. Simple well being is being buried alive under materialism and greed. It's freaky!!!!
We don't talk taxes and the markets and stocks, because we all pretty much have been living at the poverty level all along, and those aren't issues we can really relate to too much.
What's being felt in my world is unfair loss. Bullying if you will. And it hurts. And it's scary. I know people who are 80,000 dollars down thanks to their trusted investments, which for years and years had just been fine.
We always avoid the heart of issues, the humaness.
That's what i'm talkin about...!
H
NS I didn't mean to come off as angry or offended. I can see in rereading what I wrote it may have seemed that way. My point is just that most people, at least people I know, do not discuss current events in terms of taxes, revenues, stocks, governments.. It's more about how the quality of everything has shifted down. Products are shoddy yet still expensive. Simple well being is being buried alive under materialism and greed. It's freaky!!!!
We don't talk taxes and the markets and stocks, because we all pretty much have been living at the poverty level all along, and those aren't issues we can really relate to too much.
What's being felt in my world is unfair loss. Bullying if you will. And it hurts. And it's scary. I know people who are 80,000 dollars down thanks to their trusted investments, which for years and years had just been fine.
We always avoid the heart of issues, the humaness.
That's what i'm talkin about...!
H
"I am a victim of society, and, an entertainer"........DW
Okay, NS, try this one on for size...
Businesses are taxed on their profit alone, quite often a very small percentage of their overall receipts, or cash-flow. Three percent is considered an acceptable profit margin in a business. So if a business has annual gross receipts of, say, $70,000 (to keep it in comparison to a moderate family income), that business might have taxable income of only $2100. Everything else is non-taxable operating expenses.
Individuals, on the other hand, are taxed on their entire cash-flow for the year, with deductions for some of what might be termed operating expenses. Look at the above figures. How many individuals or couples with annual income of $70,000 end up with only $2100 of taxable income after allowable deductions?
If the tax code treated individuals the same as businesses we'd all be paying taxes only on what we spent at Starbucks for coffee and Blockbuster to rent movies, with even some of that written off as allowable recreational and entertainment expenses. For most individuals and couples pretty much all of their cash-flow for the year is operating expenses; they never show a profit. But the tax code isn't written that way, is it?
Why?
Peace,
Barry
Businesses are taxed on their profit alone, quite often a very small percentage of their overall receipts, or cash-flow. Three percent is considered an acceptable profit margin in a business. So if a business has annual gross receipts of, say, $70,000 (to keep it in comparison to a moderate family income), that business might have taxable income of only $2100. Everything else is non-taxable operating expenses.
Individuals, on the other hand, are taxed on their entire cash-flow for the year, with deductions for some of what might be termed operating expenses. Look at the above figures. How many individuals or couples with annual income of $70,000 end up with only $2100 of taxable income after allowable deductions?
If the tax code treated individuals the same as businesses we'd all be paying taxes only on what we spent at Starbucks for coffee and Blockbuster to rent movies, with even some of that written off as allowable recreational and entertainment expenses. For most individuals and couples pretty much all of their cash-flow for the year is operating expenses; they never show a profit. But the tax code isn't written that way, is it?
Why?
Peace,
Barry
-
Non Sum
Hey Barry,
B: If the tax code treated individuals the same as businesses
NS: It does when individuals act the same as a business. If John & Mary take some spare cash and buy some shares of stock, they are doing just what a business does. They’re taxed on profits only (if there are any) will be figured after all investment expenses (broker’s fees, investing books, phone calls, etc.) have been deducted.
But, I don’t think I’m getting my major message out to you:
Businesses, no matter how little, or much, they are taxed, will always pass on those taxes into the price of their product. Individuals have no way to pass on their taxes to anyone, ergo ‘individuals’ are the ultimate income tax payer; the ONLY tax payer ever. Businesses perform the service of collecting taxes, and passing them back to whatever tax authority demanded them. You pay a business’s taxes when you purchase goods or services. So, to call for higher business taxes is a form of economic suicide.
B: If the tax code treated individuals the same as businesses
NS: It does when individuals act the same as a business. If John & Mary take some spare cash and buy some shares of stock, they are doing just what a business does. They’re taxed on profits only (if there are any) will be figured after all investment expenses (broker’s fees, investing books, phone calls, etc.) have been deducted.
But, I don’t think I’m getting my major message out to you:
Businesses, no matter how little, or much, they are taxed, will always pass on those taxes into the price of their product. Individuals have no way to pass on their taxes to anyone, ergo ‘individuals’ are the ultimate income tax payer; the ONLY tax payer ever. Businesses perform the service of collecting taxes, and passing them back to whatever tax authority demanded them. You pay a business’s taxes when you purchase goods or services. So, to call for higher business taxes is a form of economic suicide.
I got your message, NS. And that's a very astute observation on business and taxes. I thank you for it. Yes, businesses will always pass on to the consumer (in price increases) whatever taxes they pay. Have you ever heard of one passing on tax cuts in the form of price decreases?
As for John & Mary, they should pay taxes on income derived from profit on investments, as they should on the profit derived from the sale of any assets (such as a car, though it's hard to imagine profit on the sale of a car, what with depreciation and all). And if John & Mary, in the meager spare time they might have from their grueling workaday jobs, run a small market garden, say, selling organic herbs to restaurants locally, they should pay taxes on any profit (income) derived from that enterprise. But, you see, that is income. That is the only income individuals ever make, just as the profit after operating expenses are subtracted is the only income a business ever makes, and all they pay taxes on. Individuals' wages are, in fact, not income but compensation for labor performed, and thus should not be considered taxable, as they were not before the 16th Amendment. Income, for individuals or businesses, is profit. Running a family is not generally a profitable enterprise. If it were, we'd have venture capitalists investing in families. But we don't. Very few families in America ever show a "profit," and those that do avail themselves of a great many shelters to shield that income from taxation, while the non-profit families, because those shelters are constructed principally for those with much profit to shelter, do not. Thus the non-profit families shoulder the bulk of the finite tax burden.
It's simple. There is a certain amount of tax revenue that must be collected. To reduce the amount collected in one place means that more must be collected in another. I personally believe that it makes more fiscal sense for profitable businesses and families to be shouldering the bulk of that finite tax burden than non-profit families. (Non-profit businesses don't even pay taxes.)
Addendum: Considering your final statement as to "economic suicide," how was this different before the 16th Amendment was added to the Constitution?
Peace,
Barry
As for John & Mary, they should pay taxes on income derived from profit on investments, as they should on the profit derived from the sale of any assets (such as a car, though it's hard to imagine profit on the sale of a car, what with depreciation and all). And if John & Mary, in the meager spare time they might have from their grueling workaday jobs, run a small market garden, say, selling organic herbs to restaurants locally, they should pay taxes on any profit (income) derived from that enterprise. But, you see, that is income. That is the only income individuals ever make, just as the profit after operating expenses are subtracted is the only income a business ever makes, and all they pay taxes on. Individuals' wages are, in fact, not income but compensation for labor performed, and thus should not be considered taxable, as they were not before the 16th Amendment. Income, for individuals or businesses, is profit. Running a family is not generally a profitable enterprise. If it were, we'd have venture capitalists investing in families. But we don't. Very few families in America ever show a "profit," and those that do avail themselves of a great many shelters to shield that income from taxation, while the non-profit families, because those shelters are constructed principally for those with much profit to shelter, do not. Thus the non-profit families shoulder the bulk of the finite tax burden.
It's simple. There is a certain amount of tax revenue that must be collected. To reduce the amount collected in one place means that more must be collected in another. I personally believe that it makes more fiscal sense for profitable businesses and families to be shouldering the bulk of that finite tax burden than non-profit families. (Non-profit businesses don't even pay taxes.)
Addendum: Considering your final statement as to "economic suicide," how was this different before the 16th Amendment was added to the Constitution?
Peace,
Barry
-
Non Sum
Hey Barry,
B: Individuals' wages are, in fact, not income but compensation for labor performed, and thus should not be considered taxable, as they were not before the 16th Amendment.
NS: The IRS considers wages to be “income,” according to every tax form I’ve ever completed. Are you saying that you ‘wish’ that wages were not considered to be taxable income? All income (wages, tips, dividends, interest, in-kind gifts, business profits, sale of assests, etc.) are taxable to the individual that receives them. And, as you know, the more you make the higher rates you can be taxed at.
To me, this is wrong headed. Break the school’s windows, and the judge hits you with a fine beyond the costs of window replacement. Why? To dissuade you from doing so again. Makes sense. But, where is the sense in fining a person for the crime of making an income for self and family? Yes, taxes are necessary. But, why structure a tax that opposes human initiative to profit oneself and society? Businesses operate to the benefit of: owners, workers, lenders, consumers, governments, and the indirect surrounding society. Why would you want to discourage all of that?
B: Thus the non-profit families shoulder the bulk of the finite tax burden.
NS: If a family’s basic living expenses consume all of their income (however derived) then they are not taxed, and even may receive tax credits. So, I guess we disagree. It’s the individual’s who make a net, after expenses, profit that get taxed.
B: Non-profit businesses don't even pay taxes.
NS: Of course. What would you base their tax on?
B: Addendum: Considering your final statement as to "economic suicide," how was this different before the 16th Amendment was added to the Constitution?
NS: Whatever taxations were used pre 1913, it would still be silly to demand that a ‘tax collection agency’ (businesses) be charged a higher tax, because then the collecting agency would simply collect that higher tax from you, the ultimate taxpayer. Far better (for you) to demand that business’s taxes be cut.
B: Have you ever heard of one passing on tax cuts in the form of price decreases?
NS: Sure. Taxes are just one cost, among many, to a business. A cut in costs is often taken as an opportunity to increase sales by dropping prices, in the hopes of undercutting one’s competition. Competition can come from countries with lesser, or no serious, tax burden. So, a call to raise taxes within your jurisdiction (local, state, country) is a call to fire neighbors, and reduce the local standard of living, ergo ‘suicide.’
Non Sum say: “Always best not to shoot at feet until you’re real certain none of them are attached to own leg.”
Peace to you too, dude.
B: Individuals' wages are, in fact, not income but compensation for labor performed, and thus should not be considered taxable, as they were not before the 16th Amendment.
NS: The IRS considers wages to be “income,” according to every tax form I’ve ever completed. Are you saying that you ‘wish’ that wages were not considered to be taxable income? All income (wages, tips, dividends, interest, in-kind gifts, business profits, sale of assests, etc.) are taxable to the individual that receives them. And, as you know, the more you make the higher rates you can be taxed at.
To me, this is wrong headed. Break the school’s windows, and the judge hits you with a fine beyond the costs of window replacement. Why? To dissuade you from doing so again. Makes sense. But, where is the sense in fining a person for the crime of making an income for self and family? Yes, taxes are necessary. But, why structure a tax that opposes human initiative to profit oneself and society? Businesses operate to the benefit of: owners, workers, lenders, consumers, governments, and the indirect surrounding society. Why would you want to discourage all of that?
B: Thus the non-profit families shoulder the bulk of the finite tax burden.
NS: If a family’s basic living expenses consume all of their income (however derived) then they are not taxed, and even may receive tax credits. So, I guess we disagree. It’s the individual’s who make a net, after expenses, profit that get taxed.
B: Non-profit businesses don't even pay taxes.
NS: Of course. What would you base their tax on?
B: Addendum: Considering your final statement as to "economic suicide," how was this different before the 16th Amendment was added to the Constitution?
NS: Whatever taxations were used pre 1913, it would still be silly to demand that a ‘tax collection agency’ (businesses) be charged a higher tax, because then the collecting agency would simply collect that higher tax from you, the ultimate taxpayer. Far better (for you) to demand that business’s taxes be cut.
B: Have you ever heard of one passing on tax cuts in the form of price decreases?
NS: Sure. Taxes are just one cost, among many, to a business. A cut in costs is often taken as an opportunity to increase sales by dropping prices, in the hopes of undercutting one’s competition. Competition can come from countries with lesser, or no serious, tax burden. So, a call to raise taxes within your jurisdiction (local, state, country) is a call to fire neighbors, and reduce the local standard of living, ergo ‘suicide.’
Non Sum say: “Always best not to shoot at feet until you’re real certain none of them are attached to own leg.”
Peace to you too, dude.
-
Non Sum
Sorry, I honestly believed that I had answered it, Barry.
Why don't you explain your question, and i will hopefully understand it well enough to respond with what you are after. Pre 1913, there was no income tax. So, what tax are you referring to exactly?
Don't assume evasion, when other 'honest' options are possible.
Why don't you explain your question, and i will hopefully understand it well enough to respond with what you are after. Pre 1913, there was no income tax. So, what tax are you referring to exactly?
Don't assume evasion, when other 'honest' options are possible.
This was your entire answer.
How did the gov't manage to collect enough revenue to run things before the 16th Amendment, without committing "economic suicide"?
How was taxation handled by the gov't before the 16th Amendment, without committing "economic suicide"?
You so-called conservatives...you assume all those businesses will just up and leave (the country; the state; etc.) if gov't don't kow-tow to them. Bah! Even if, God forbid, they should, what happens, economically, when such a void in the market is created?
It gets filled by smart people/businesses just waiting for them to up and leave!!! In other words, their bluff gets called.
And I thought you knew stuff, dude.
Peace,
Barry
So, to be clear...Whatever taxations were used pre 1913
How did the gov't manage to collect enough revenue to run things before the 16th Amendment, without committing "economic suicide"?
How was taxation handled by the gov't before the 16th Amendment, without committing "economic suicide"?
You so-called conservatives...you assume all those businesses will just up and leave (the country; the state; etc.) if gov't don't kow-tow to them. Bah! Even if, God forbid, they should, what happens, economically, when such a void in the market is created?
It gets filled by smart people/businesses just waiting for them to up and leave!!! In other words, their bluff gets called.
And I thought you knew stuff, dude.
Peace,
Barry
-
stilltrucking
- Posts: 20607
- Joined: October 24th, 2004, 12:29 pm
- Location: Oz or somepLace like Kansas
-
Non Sum
My best understanding is that the federal government (pre-income tax) employed mostly a mix of tariffs, and excise taxes placed on a variety of articles, to meet its then modest needs. I recall H.S. history’s mention of the ‘Whiskey Rebellion’ over the radical idea of placing a federal tax on our nation’s life-blood, i.e. whiskey.
There are plenty of possible routes to procure federal revenues without taxing people’s income. I’m partial to a flat tax, and would also increase user fees for thousands of federal services and facilities.
Barry: You so-called conservatives...
NS: Where did you get the silly idea that I wasn’t a liberal???
I almost always vote straight Democratic ticket. I’ve worked Dem campaigns since JFK, worked for unions, marched for equal rights on several fronts, protested a war by being jailed several times, and refused to go to Nam, thus spending a year in a federal prison. I’ve paid my dues as a social liberal many times over, have you?
B: .you assume all those businesses will just up and leave (the country; the state; etc.) if gov't don't kow-tow to them.
NS: I do?? Where did I say that? What a silly assumption for anyone to make.
You are making assumptions, Barry, left and right, and every one of them is totally Wrong-o. I’m for the wage earner, just as much as I am for all our fellow citizens, rich and poor alike. I don’t favor one group (racial, economic, ethnic, gender, sexual orientation, etc.) over another. Only bigots do that. Are you bigoted against some group of Americans, Barry. I see a lot of that around.
I have disliked the income tax since my first paycheck in 1960. It’s unfair, costly to run, and hurts all that it touches. The idea I see you liking in that horrid tax, correct me if wrong, is that it equalizes wealth, no? I, and America’s greatest liberal, Thomas Jefferson disagree with you.
”To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his father has acquired too much, in order to spare to others who (or whose fathers) have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, ‘to guarantee to everyone a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it.’” (T. J.)
B: And I thought you knew stuff, dude.
NS: Damn, you just don’t seem to be getting anything right today, Barr.
There are plenty of possible routes to procure federal revenues without taxing people’s income. I’m partial to a flat tax, and would also increase user fees for thousands of federal services and facilities.
Barry: You so-called conservatives...
NS: Where did you get the silly idea that I wasn’t a liberal???
I almost always vote straight Democratic ticket. I’ve worked Dem campaigns since JFK, worked for unions, marched for equal rights on several fronts, protested a war by being jailed several times, and refused to go to Nam, thus spending a year in a federal prison. I’ve paid my dues as a social liberal many times over, have you?
B: .you assume all those businesses will just up and leave (the country; the state; etc.) if gov't don't kow-tow to them.
NS: I do?? Where did I say that? What a silly assumption for anyone to make.
You are making assumptions, Barry, left and right, and every one of them is totally Wrong-o. I’m for the wage earner, just as much as I am for all our fellow citizens, rich and poor alike. I don’t favor one group (racial, economic, ethnic, gender, sexual orientation, etc.) over another. Only bigots do that. Are you bigoted against some group of Americans, Barry. I see a lot of that around.
I have disliked the income tax since my first paycheck in 1960. It’s unfair, costly to run, and hurts all that it touches. The idea I see you liking in that horrid tax, correct me if wrong, is that it equalizes wealth, no? I, and America’s greatest liberal, Thomas Jefferson disagree with you.
”To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his father has acquired too much, in order to spare to others who (or whose fathers) have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, ‘to guarantee to everyone a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it.’” (T. J.)
B: And I thought you knew stuff, dude.
NS: Damn, you just don’t seem to be getting anything right today, Barr.
-
stilltrucking
- Posts: 20607
- Joined: October 24th, 2004, 12:29 pm
- Location: Oz or somepLace like Kansas
Were you in the Marine Corp Non Sum? If you don't mind me asking.
We don't need no stinking Thomas Jefferson here in Texas.
We don't need no stinking Thomas Jefferson here in Texas.
Texas Removes Thomas Jefferson From Teaching Standard - AOL NewsThe board voted to enact new teaching standards for history and social studies ... The Texas Board of Education is dropping President Thomas Jefferson from a ... Texas textbooks will contain references to "laws of nature and nature's ...
http://www.aolnews.com/nation/.../texas ... ./19397481 - Cached
Texas Education Board Approves Conservative Curriculum Changes By ...Mar 12, 2010 ... The Board removed Thomas Jefferson from the Texas curriculum, ..... Fiddling around with history in textbooks is nothing new, though. ...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/.../texas ... 97440.html - Cached
Texas Textbook MASSACRE: 'Ultraconservatives' Approve Radical ...Mar 13, 2010 ... The Board removed Thomas Jefferson from the Texas curriculum's world .... Think Progress » Texas to revise history textbooks: liberals out . ...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/.../texas ... 98003.html - Cached
Show more results from www.huffingtonpost.com
Texas BOE Removes Jefferson From History Standard : Dispatches ...They actually removed Thomas Jefferson and the Enlightenment from the history ..... So textbooks are written for Texas, or for California, and other states ...
scienceblogs.com/dispatches/.../texas_boe_removes_jefferson_fr.php - Cached
Think Progress » Texas Board of Education cuts Thomas Jefferson ...Mar 12, 2010 ... If Texas keeps this up they mind as well switch their textbooks with ...... The Texas SBOE removed Thomas Jefferson from the World History ...
thinkprogress.org/.../texas-education-board-cuts-thomas-jefferson-out-of-its-textbooks/ - Cached
Texas Conservatives Win Vote on Textbook Standards - NYTimes.comMar 13, 2010 ... Battles over what to put in science and history books have taken place for ... managed to cut Thomas Jefferson from a list of figures whose ...
www.nytimes.com/2010/03/13/education/13texas.html - Add to iGoogle
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html
The first sentence of Article 1, Section 2, (the powers of Congress) of the US Constitution, stated that Congress had the power to levy direct taxes apportioned among the states.
This sentence was nullified by the 14th Amendment.
Sentence four of Section 9 (the limits on Congress) further defined this power to tax, and iterated the limitation on it.
This sentence was nullified by the 16th Amendment.
Income taxes on either individuals or businesses (corporate entities) are neither direct nor apportioned.
My issue with corporate income taxation is that corporations function legally as "persons" in many ways on the one hand, yet when it comes to taxation, persons are taxed in one way and corporate entities in another. Persons are taxed on their entire cash-flow, with some deductions. Corporate entities are taxed only on the meager profit they show. And then they get "breaks" on that from state and federal gov't. in order to "attract" them. The result is the populace, you know, "We the People," who the gov't. is really supposed to not only working for but composed of, suffers under the unfair condition of shouldering the bulk of the finite tax burden, while corporate entities enjoy the benefit of stability and prosperity gov't. is enjoined to provide without paying their fair share.
It's not gov't. of the business, for the business, by the business. (At least it's not supposed to be.) It's gov't. of the People, by the People, for the People.
I know what you'll say...People run businesses. Yes, I know. But gov't. in America was originally designed to be run by and for the People, and to protect the People from tyranny, be it tyranny of gov't. or tyranny of business. Somewhere along the way that got screwed up. And the contradiction in the way taxation is handled points it up.
Now I'm going to go get a latte from Starbucks and watch some Comcast.
Peace,
Barry
The first sentence of Article 1, Section 2, (the powers of Congress) of the US Constitution, stated that Congress had the power to levy direct taxes apportioned among the states.
This sentence was nullified by the 14th Amendment.
Sentence four of Section 9 (the limits on Congress) further defined this power to tax, and iterated the limitation on it.
This sentence was nullified by the 16th Amendment.
Income taxes on either individuals or businesses (corporate entities) are neither direct nor apportioned.
My issue with corporate income taxation is that corporations function legally as "persons" in many ways on the one hand, yet when it comes to taxation, persons are taxed in one way and corporate entities in another. Persons are taxed on their entire cash-flow, with some deductions. Corporate entities are taxed only on the meager profit they show. And then they get "breaks" on that from state and federal gov't. in order to "attract" them. The result is the populace, you know, "We the People," who the gov't. is really supposed to not only working for but composed of, suffers under the unfair condition of shouldering the bulk of the finite tax burden, while corporate entities enjoy the benefit of stability and prosperity gov't. is enjoined to provide without paying their fair share.
It's not gov't. of the business, for the business, by the business. (At least it's not supposed to be.) It's gov't. of the People, by the People, for the People.
I know what you'll say...People run businesses. Yes, I know. But gov't. in America was originally designed to be run by and for the People, and to protect the People from tyranny, be it tyranny of gov't. or tyranny of business. Somewhere along the way that got screwed up. And the contradiction in the way taxation is handled points it up.
Now I'm going to go get a latte from Starbucks and watch some Comcast.
Peace,
Barry
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 25 guests