It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

So rich going to have to accept less or have it taken from them?

page: 10
19
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 10 2016 @ 01:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t



Therefore they AREN'T uniform. At least not federally.

US DOT says that federal gasoline taxes are 18.4 cents per gallon. That is uniform across the US. Individual states tack on their gasoline taxes also.
US DOT




posted on Feb, 10 2016 @ 01:42 PM
link   
a reply to: butcherguy

Ok so one of them is uniform. That still doesn't mean that taxes HAVE to be uniform across the land.



posted on Feb, 10 2016 @ 01:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

How the hell is that your seriously sitting there saying THIS doesn't mean what it MEANS.



The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence[note 1] and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;


So uniform doesn't mean UNIFORM ?



Full Definition of uniform 1 : having always the same form, manner, or degree : not varying or variable 2 : consistent in conduct or opinion 3 : of the same form with others : conforming to one rule or mode : consonant 4 : presenting an unvaried appearance of surface, pattern, or color 5 : relating to or being convergence of a series whose terms are functions in such manner that the absolute value of the difference between the sum of the first n terms of the series and the sum of all terms can be made arbitrarily small for all values of the domain of the functions by choosing the nth term sufficiently far along in the series


www.merriam-webster.com...

Just wow.



posted on Feb, 10 2016 @ 01:46 PM
link   
a reply to: Puppylove




Because they own more wealth than the rest combined.

If I have 300000 dollars I get a week and you tax me 80%

And you have 300 Dollars and tax you 80%

I have 60000 dollars to get through the week

You have 60 dollars to get through the week

You can't tax both people the same and expect them both to survive. One will while taxed a lot more, STILL make the other person look like a pauper even though they worked 40 hours a week for that 300 dollars.

To tax the person who makes three hundred dollars 80% is to pretty much murder them, damn near literally, can you say the same for the other guy?


I'm sorry, but that's nonsense. No one is advocating taxing the poor more.

My point is the majority of income tax (84%) is payed for by the top 20 percentile while at the same time only making 51% of US income. The tax share exceeds the income share. The second highest quintile (with incomes of $79,500 to $134,300) earns 20% of US total income as a group, but shoulders only 13.4% of the total US income tax burden. In another way of saying it, the top 5% earn about 29% of the total income but pay 64% of income taxes payed, while the 309 million Americans in the bottom 95% pay only 36% of total income taxes paid but earn roughly 83% of US total income, according to the Wall Street Journal article I linked to earlier.



posted on Feb, 10 2016 @ 01:46 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

Maybe because you are selectively quoting the text like I already pointed out? The full phrase reads as such:

but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;


And AGAIN, at the beginning of the paragraph it SPECIFICALLY mentions taxes in addition to these three things which leads anyone with even a small bit of intelligence to realize that taxes weren't included with the uniform requirement.


The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises


Your attempt to misinterpret the Constitution would just be laughed out of any legal discussion by anyone with even a modicum of Constitutional law background. Hell, I did it easily just using the stuff you quoted me.

There is no uniform requirement on taxes no matter how much you want to believe there is. And no, I don't have any problem with the definition of uniform, but you apparently have problems with reading comprehension if you can't see that taxes weren't included among duties, imposts and excises.
edit on 10-2-2016 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 10 2016 @ 01:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Heres a thought try READING IT AGAIN.



The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence[note 1] and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;


First part


he Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts


And the second part someone is arguing for the hell of.



shall be uniform throughout the United States


Is the income tax used to pay down DEBT ?

NOPE.

I haven't 'misinterpreted' anything.

It's clearly spelled out for all to see.



posted on Feb, 10 2016 @ 01:51 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

I've read it every time you posted it, and the discrepancy I've already pointed out twice now hasn't gone away each time I've read it. Perhaps you should try reading it again?



posted on Feb, 10 2016 @ 01:52 PM
link   
I can't believe that those that want a 90% tax on the wealthy and successful aren't all in on a 100% tax.

Leaving 10% sounds like an insult and a gift of government.



posted on Feb, 10 2016 @ 01:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

The income tax should NOT exist.

But hey feel free to give the US government your 'hard' earned money that is consistently blows.

I'd rather not.



posted on Feb, 10 2016 @ 01:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: Krazysh0t

The income tax should NOT exist.


Too bad. Life doesn't work out like you'd like it to.


But hey feel free to give the US government your 'hard' earned money that is consistently blows.

I'd rather not.


Ok, feel free to go to jail for tax evasion then. It's your choice.
edit on 10-2-2016 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 10 2016 @ 01:56 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t




Ok, feel free to go to jail for tax evasion then. It's your choice.


Well then I am in 'good' company.

Tax Dodgers

Since everything Sanders 'owns' is in his wifes name.

That makes him one too.



posted on Feb, 10 2016 @ 01:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: Krazysh0t




Ok, feel free to go to jail for tax evasion then. It's your choice.


Well then I am in 'good' company.

Tax Dodgers

Since everything Sanders 'owns' is in his wifes name.

That makes him one too.


For one, I really don't care about Democrat tax evaders. I know I've told you this many times and I have a feeling I'll tell you this many more times, I'm not a Democrat and I'm not beholden to its politicians. So what you presented here means nothing to me. Second, I don't trust blogs as legit sources.



posted on Feb, 10 2016 @ 01:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Heres a thought try READING IT AGAIN.



The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence[note 1] and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;


First part


he Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts


And the second part someone is arguing for the hell of.



shall be uniform throughout the United States


Is the income tax used to pay down DEBT ?

NOPE.

I haven't 'misinterpreted' anything.

It's clearly spelled out for all to see.


The problem is progressives like to claim everything is "general welfare". Conservative, let's stop wasting money on studying snail sex. You can't cut that because it is general welfare!

This has allowed government to expand. The term general welfare is too vague and is used as a catch all to justify government involvement in everything much like the commerce clause.



posted on Feb, 10 2016 @ 02:01 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t




For one, I really don't care about Democrat tax evaders. I know I've told you this many times and I have a feeling I'll tell you this many more times, I'm not a Democrat and I'm not beholden to its politicians. So what you presented here means nothing to me. Second, I don't trust blogs as legit sources.


Tell me another story.

I love fiction.



posted on Feb, 10 2016 @ 02:02 PM
link   
a reply to: Edumakated

Your post was one word away from a star. If you had just said "politicians" instead of progressives and kept your partisan opinion silent you would have been spot on. Progressives aren't the only ones who waste tax money on frivolous expenses and if you were honest with yourself, you'd admit it too.



posted on Feb, 10 2016 @ 02:04 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

Well it looks like we are done for the day since this is all that we are left with. I can only take so much partisan hyperbole from you in one day and this disrespect is too much now. Cya next time. Keep hating.



posted on Feb, 10 2016 @ 02:05 PM
link   
a reply to: Edumakated




The problem is progressives like to claim everything is "general welfare".


They clearly don't know what the phrase means.

General Welfare as the founder wrote as something every single person gets a direct benefit from.

The welfare of the state functioning properly, and paying it's own bills is what they meant by that.

Not sacred cows of taking money from the rich so the poor can go out, and buy stuff doesn't qualify.

Defense spending is another example.

A relative safe, and secure environment that people can work and live without someone blowing them up where they work or dropping bombs on them.

Anyways that was the idea behind it.

As we clearly see today we exist to work, and pay for other peoples existence, and give them things they 'can't' get on their own.



posted on Feb, 10 2016 @ 02:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Edumakated

Your post was one word away from a star. If you had just said "politicians" instead of progressives and kept your partisan opinion silent you would have been spot on. Progressives aren't the only ones who waste tax money on frivolous expenses and if you were honest with yourself, you'd admit it too.


^ THIS



Great post KS, thanks for this wisdom



posted on Feb, 10 2016 @ 02:06 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Yeah I am 'such' a hater.

For wanting the income tax abolished.

I am 'so' evil aren't i?



posted on Feb, 10 2016 @ 02:13 PM
link   
a reply to: Xeven

So basically, no one can be rich?

Whatever happened to America: Land of Opportunity? I was always brought up to think that in America, if you worked hard, you might become rich.



new topics

top topics



 
19
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join