bah, moshe! that may have been the case 100 years ago, but just isn't true in today's world. The real reason is that the government elites have taken to injecting themselves and the rest of the rich with a foul bitter-flavored substance. The rich simply aren't tasty or even edible anymore.
SixofNine
JoinedPosts by SixofNine
-
98
Is it ethical to make rich pay more taxes?
by Lore ini'm having trouble getting behind the idea of making rich people pay more taxes just because they have more.. aside from the obvious: "i'm not rich so lets tax them instead of me.
" the three reasons i hear most often are:.
1: they may have "earned" their wealth but they don't deserve it!.
-
-
-
31
Amazing photos ....
by talesin infrom my friend's new website.. .
http://www.joeislesphotography.ca/slideshow.php.
.
-
-
SixofNine
Purdy stuff Tal.
So if I wanted to shoot that clock, you could tell me exactly where it is and who to get permission from? ;)
-
4
Non-Political Watchtower style!
by Marvin Shilmer innon-political watchtower style!
most folks are unaware watchtower has published an essay on how to be non-political.
today my blog shows this masterpiece of neutrality in the worlds affairs!
-
-
SixofNine
You can readily pick out the WatchTower's interest in this bill:
One of the several measures introduced in the Fifty-seventh Congress by right-wing senators seeking to retaliate against the Supreme Court for decisions protecting the constitutional rights of persons charged with subversive activities (see Subversion). One provision would have restored full investigative authority to congressional committees, which had been subjected to some limitations by the Court's 1957 decision in Watkins v. United States (see Congressional Power of Investigation). Another section would have restored full enforceability of state sedition laws, which had been limited in Pennsylvania v. Nelson (1956). A third would have rehabilitated the Smith Act, which made advocating overthrow of the government unlawful. This statute had been narrowly interpreted by the Court in Yates v. United States (1957).
The most serious constitutional issue posed by the Jenner-Butler bill, however, was its assertion of congressional authority over the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. The bill specified five areas where the Court's rulings had been challenged by conservative legislators and would have barred the Court from accepting or deciding such cases in the future. Arguably, constitutional support for such power may be found in Article III, section 2 of the Constitution and in a post–Civil War decision, Ex parte McCardle (1869).
Any such limits on the Court's appellate jurisdiction, however, would have severely challenged the Court's independent status, and the Senate was reluctant to subordinate the Court's appellate jurisdiction to control by Congress. Under the astute management of the Senate majority leader, Lyndon Johnson, all provisions of the bill were defeated, by a vote of 49 to 41, on 20 August 1958.See also Appellate Jurisdiction; Communism and Cold War; Reversals of Court Decisions by Congress.
— C. Herman Pritchett
Read more: http://www.answers.com/topic/jenner-butler-bill#ixzz1ScIhIGoa
And a link to a Time Magazine article on the bill: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,863386,00.html
-
98
Is it ethical to make rich pay more taxes?
by Lore ini'm having trouble getting behind the idea of making rich people pay more taxes just because they have more.. aside from the obvious: "i'm not rich so lets tax them instead of me.
" the three reasons i hear most often are:.
1: they may have "earned" their wealth but they don't deserve it!.
-
-
SixofNine
Fu-k, I am agreeing with 69
Hah! Just chalk it up to even a broken satanic child-of-hell timeclock being right twice a day
-
98
Is it ethical to make rich pay more taxes?
by Lore ini'm having trouble getting behind the idea of making rich people pay more taxes just because they have more.. aside from the obvious: "i'm not rich so lets tax them instead of me.
" the three reasons i hear most often are:.
1: they may have "earned" their wealth but they don't deserve it!.
-
-
SixofNine
I see SixOfNine went back and edited his first page post with quotes after he was called out for producing nothing.
Now see, you're even lying about that. I did no such editing.
-
98
Is it ethical to make rich pay more taxes?
by Lore ini'm having trouble getting behind the idea of making rich people pay more taxes just because they have more.. aside from the obvious: "i'm not rich so lets tax them instead of me.
" the three reasons i hear most often are:.
1: they may have "earned" their wealth but they don't deserve it!.
-
-
SixofNine
Why you can't provide evidence yourself while calling others liars and claiming they don't do their research is beyond me.
Please. I simply stated a well known fact. The reason it is so well known is because of quotes like the one you provided. It's nice you provided it, but don't try to spank me for not - I was being honest in the first place; and as mentioned it's a known and accepted fact. (in spite of BTS continued dishonesty wrt Smith's views).
And I called BTS a liar because, well, he's lying. A system in which the rich pay more taxes (than in simple percentage of wealth or income terms) is a progressive tax system. Adam Smith advocated for this, and BTS is a lying when he obfuscates otherwise.
-
98
Is it ethical to make rich pay more taxes?
by Lore ini'm having trouble getting behind the idea of making rich people pay more taxes just because they have more.. aside from the obvious: "i'm not rich so lets tax them instead of me.
" the three reasons i hear most often are:.
1: they may have "earned" their wealth but they don't deserve it!.
-
-
SixofNine
Wow, more stunning dishonesty from BTS. Folks, Adam Smith advocated progressive taxation. It's just a fact. He didn't propose the current American form of progressive taxation, but he advocated for VERY progressive taxation (he didn't want wages taxed at all). BTS is using weasely words and selective quotes to claim the opposite.
That's just plain.bald.faced.lying.
-
98
Is it ethical to make rich pay more taxes?
by Lore ini'm having trouble getting behind the idea of making rich people pay more taxes just because they have more.. aside from the obvious: "i'm not rich so lets tax them instead of me.
" the three reasons i hear most often are:.
1: they may have "earned" their wealth but they don't deserve it!.
-
-
SixofNine
Perhaps I didn't make my point clearly.
lol. Your point would be clear to a 5 year old. That's also about when it should stop being intellectually appealing to anyone.
-
98
Is it ethical to make rich pay more taxes?
by Lore ini'm having trouble getting behind the idea of making rich people pay more taxes just because they have more.. aside from the obvious: "i'm not rich so lets tax them instead of me.
" the three reasons i hear most often are:.
1: they may have "earned" their wealth but they don't deserve it!.
-
-
SixofNine
"but a progressive income tax is not among them."
Oh look, BTS is lying again. Imagine that. This discussion centers around the nature and fairness or lack thereof of "progressive tax". You throwing the word "income" in between "progressive" and "tax", as if it were important to the argument, is a form of lying.
-
98
Is it ethical to make rich pay more taxes?
by Lore ini'm having trouble getting behind the idea of making rich people pay more taxes just because they have more.. aside from the obvious: "i'm not rich so lets tax them instead of me.
" the three reasons i hear most often are:.
1: they may have "earned" their wealth but they don't deserve it!.
-
-
SixofNine
Just answer the question Lore. Why do you think Adam Smith disagreed with you? Surely you've thought about this, yes? Since you've done your homework and all ;)
Oh wait, you didn't know that the man known as the "father of capitalism" doesn't share your autistically motivated view of "fair" taxation?