Some republicans are suggesting we should 'redo the election'.

I live in the Tampa, Florida area, and just a few miles (as the crow flies) from where I hang my hat we had violent protests, and a pharmacy and sporting goods store (and more) were looted and burned to the ground. As if a pharmacy and a sporting goods store are somehow legitimate political targets of angry looters. Within spitting distance of my house, people guilty of nothing more than having dinner out were harassed, and came close to having violence released against them.

And compared to many other areas, relatively nothing much actually happened here. I don't even know if those events made national news.

 

That's all you got? "That's not true."

Why, because you said so? Because you want it to be true? Or maybe need it to be true?? This kind of drive-by posting adds NOTHING to the conversation.

 

I think @RodB covered that one quite well, but your lack of response is notable in it's absence.

Oh, that's just complete bullshit. I am one of those "middle" people who received a noticeable tax cut, and have NOT noticed any significant price increases anywhere. If anything prices are trending downwards as businesses who just barely managed to survive the (democrat inspired) shutdowns are desperate to still be around in another 6 or 12 months, and responding to that desperation by cutting prices, at least for the short term. Of course those tariff costs will be passed down to consumers eventually, assuming they haven't already been. If the latter is true, it seems it's such a small amount as to be imperceptible at the end-user level.

Wait, just those two? What about Trump's "tax cuts for the rich" (that were really tax cuts for everyone)? Are those no longer being repealed? I sure hope not, as I don't want my taxes to go up, which they will if those cuts go away, despite the fact that I'm nowhere near the magic $400k/year that Biden promised was the floor for any tax increases. Then again, he DID make that his top post-election priority, so I guess we'll see which promise he wants to keep more. Because it's a mathematical impossibility to keep both.

As for the AMT, I'll leave that alone at least for now as I don't feel like I'm educated enough to have an informed opinion, and I'm not going to pretend otherwise. But the death tax is just ridiculous. We've taxed those people their whole f-ing lives at so many different levels, and just as a final insult on their way out the door, we're going to take away their kids inheritance. Nice.

Oh, and don't worry, I still plan to get back to you on the whole gerrymandering thing, but I need to go play some video games before it's sleepy time for now. But I haven't forgotten.

 

You've been listening far too much to Nadler and his imaginations..

 

COVID probably played a role. But there has to be more to explain the 4.7 million ticket splitters who voted for Biden, then Republican down ballot. Were they voting against Trump because of the virus or just because they plain didn't like him. I suspect most of those 4.7 million were independents who lean Republican along with a few Republican Never Trumpers.

61% of all independents disliked Trump, 53% disliked him a lot. Only 34% of independent disliked Biden which included 24% who disliked him a lot. Likeability is the big change from 2016 where 57% of independents disliked Trump vs. 70% who disliked Hillary Clinton. Trump won independents in 2016 46-42 with 12% voting third party. In 2020, Trump lost independents 54-41 with 5% voting third party.

https://docs.cdn.yougov.com/nzc8dt85gn/econTabReport.pdf

https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/l37rosbwjp/econTabReport_lv.pdf

https://www.cnn.com/election/2020/exit-polls/president/national-results

So Trump lost because independents deserted him. I suppose one can say they deserted him because of the virus or just plain because they didn't like him, his more or less obnoxious personality and his very unpresidential behavior. Or it could have been a combination of several things. Now history has shown folks usually don't vote for someone they dislike.

One last interesting stat. 71% of all those who voted, vote for a candidate they wanted to win the presidency, Trump won those 53-46 over Biden. 24% of those who voted, there vote was against a candidate, not for one, against a candidate they didn't want as president or to become president, not for a candidate. 68% of this group voted for Biden for the main reason of being totally against Trump. Only 30% of this group voted for Trump because they were against Biden. Winning the anti or against vote is another reason Biden won, now that could all come down to likeability also.

 

99% of the nation is not experiencing rioting. Pointing to one or two cities where it remains doesn't make it so. It's a scare tactic, and a silly one at that.

 

Who is Nadler?

 

That would be Rep. Nadler who led the impeachment inquiry and separately) announced to the press that there was no rioting, looting, or burning going on. Somewhat like the TV reporter who announced on live camera there was only peaceful demonstrations as a large building was burning to the ground in the background.

 

Ah...I see. You were wrong, then. I haven't listened to him since he fell asleep during the impeachment. Got anything else?

 

It's not a merit worthy method to weigh a policy based on personal anecdote.

https://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-tariffs-consumer-price-effect-20190514-story.html
...Goldman Sachs analysts said in a report that when they grouped together nine of the CPI product categories affected by the tariffs so far, including laundry and other appliances, furniture and auto parts, it showed those consumer prices increased “much more” than other core goods prices in the CPI.

When the additional tariff costs consumers paid in the latter part of last year are annualized, the cost per household is about $419, said David Weinstein, a professor of economics at Columbia University who coauthored a working paper released by London’s Centre for Economic Policy Research on the effect of the Trump administration’s 2018 trade policy on U.S. prices.

Without stimulus to prop up prices, depressions, owing to drop in demand, result in price deflation.

This is what is happening now, since the effect of the first stimulus has long since worn off.

This fact is post Tariffs, and does not change the fact that Tariffs are a tax on US Citizens, as a general principle.

Biden has stated many times he will only repeal tax cuts for those above $400k per year. I take him at his word.

Many superrich do not have 'earned income' and wind up paying little taxes. Yet they accrue wealth above and beyond us mere mortals. The AMT is for those folks, it says, 'sorry, you must pay a tax, because it is just that you do'.

"death tax" is a right wing propaganda term. I support an estate tax above a certain threshold. I don't support it for those who worked all there lives, bought a house, and want to will it to their kids, that sort of thig. I support it insofar as it diminishes dynasty-ism. In other words, you own $1 billion dollars worth of estate, land, investments, and I support a 50% tax on that kind of wealth as an estate tax. This tax only applies to a small number of families in the US. The kids will get plenty, but we need to slow down the widening inequality gap. The top 1% own $35 trillion of the nation's wealth, and the bottom 50% own $2 trillion ( 1.8% ) (source Fed. Reserve ). Without an estate tax, this gap widens at an ever increasing rate.

Ok.

 

Super big mistake.

Just out of curiosity which of Biden's words do you take: the ones when he said he was going to ban fracking, or the ones when he said he was not going to ban fracking?

That is not in the least what the ATM does. For the record any wealth tax would be unconstitutional ........ although that is beginning to not matter much.

 

Apparently you haven't ever heard of the notion that people say things, things that beg for qualification and then qualify them later.

A wealth tax is just a tax on assets, which IS constitutional. Ever heard of property taxes? Estate taxes?

The AMT applies to taxpayers with high economic income by setting a limit on those benefits. It helps to ensure that those taxpayers pay at least a minimum amount of tax --IRS

 

So that's what they call waffling and lying these days.

The 16th amendment: "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census of enumeration." (emphasis mine) It ain't rocket science. It does not say wealth or assets. The federal government does not collect any property taxes. The estate tax snuck through as a transfer of assets or wealth, not as wealth itself. Ergo a federal tax on wealth or assets is clearly and definitively NOT constitutional.

Yes, AMT is designed to tax higher incomes, but not wealth as you originally claimed..

 

Precisely the attitude that made democrats think it was okay to commit fraud on this election.

 

This election has been a total joke. From the input to the output there is no verifiability. To do the election right we would have to get rid of the Dominion software and easily hackable voting machines used in 30 states and all the swing states. It should be run like Canada's election. All paper, all counted with a supervisor for each counter. Instead votes are counted in the dark of night without any supervision at all and fed into machines literally designed to steal elections abroad.

 

There is, indeed, paper ballots to back up any challenges.

You seriously need to quit swimming in the alt-right fever swamp.

 

22 lawsuits and all of them thrown out of court for 'insufficient evidence'.

If there were evidence, as Trump claims, one wonders why his lawyers didn't present it in court?

I'll tell you why:

There isn't any.

You know the old saying, 'put up or shut up'.

We'll be waiting

 

I hear Sasquatch was behind it all. Shady fella.

 

No, that's what YOU call it. No one cares.

You must be telling a bogus story, because there twelve different types of taxes, individual income taxes, corporate income taxes, payroll taxes, and capital gains taxes; buy: sales taxes, gross receipts taxes, value-added taxes, and excise taxes; and own: property taxes, tangible personal property taxes, estate and inheritance taxes, and wealth taxes.

The subject is not as black and white as you are portraying.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_tax
In a lengthy essay from 2018, authors in the Indiana Journal of Law argued that "... the belief that the U.S. Constitution effectively makes a national wealth tax impossible ... is wrong."[66]:112 The authors noted that in the 1796 Supreme Court decision for Hylton v. United States, Supreme Court justices who had personally taken part in the creation of the U.S. Constitution "unanimously rejected a challenge to the constitutionality of an annual tax on carriages, a tax akin to a national wealth tax in that it taxed a luxury property."[66]:114 However, Alexander Hamilton, who supported the carriage tax, told the Supreme Court that it was constitutional because it was an "excise tax", not a direct tax. Hamilton’s brief defines direct taxes as "Capitation or poll taxes, taxes on lands and buildings, general assessments, whether on the whole property of individuals or on their whole real or personal estate" which would include the wealth tax.[67] Tax scholars have repeatedly noted that the critical difference between income taxes and wealth taxes, the realization requirement, is a matter of administrative convenience, not a constitutional requirement.

#66 links to;
https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=11279&context=ilj

#67 links to
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/a...arren-s-wealth-tax-is-probably-constitutional

 

You have a point, except for the fact that my experience tells me my "personal anecdote" is extremely common amongst many middle-class folks such as myself.

Which might be a problem, if it weren't for that fact that the average tax cut for a middle class family was 4x that. Source 1. Source 2. And a simple google search will find you dozens more. Here, let me show you.

Wait a minute, wasn't it just the very last post on this topic you were complaining about price inflation? Make up your mind, please, which one is it??

You're right. In fact, ALL taxes ultimately fall on US Citizens, including so called "Corporate Income Taxes", though "consumers" is probably more accurate..

But, it's only been a week or two since you and your leftist cronies were stating that fact was outright nonsense on this very board on a thread on that very topic. Glad to see you've come around on that point, and I look forward to seeing you go retract your statements and admit just how wrong you were on that thread. But I'm not exactly holding my breath that you will. Quite the opposite, I'd probably pass out from shock if you did.

But it would be nice if you guys would be consistent in your arguments and points across one related issue to another.

Regardless, I've already shown that any tax increases in this area are offset by 400% by Trump's "tax cuts for the rich", mostly because they were not, in fact, just for "the rich" despite your rhetoric in demonizing him for that "fact". I guess you didn't like your tax decreases he provided because, well, it's Trump and he can't do anything right. So I fully expect that you'll be paying the old rates for your 2020 taxes, and go back and correct your mistake for tax years 2018 and 2019, too. Obviously, you're not one of the evil rich, so you shouldn't be benefiting from those tax cuts, so volunteering to pay the old rates is your only viable alternative.

I don't take any politician at their word, especially when said word has painted them into a corner where they've made 2 separate promises that are mathematically impossible to keep. Only one or the other can be true, yet he's promised (over and over again, ad nauseum) to do both. Do keep in mind that math is not subject to debate, nor is it an expression of opinion. Math is math. 2+2=4 in all cases, even if that doesn't exactly help your schizophrenic statements. He did not vow a partial repeal of Trump's tax cuts, he vowed (over and over and over again) a COMPLETE repeal, which WILL affect millions of families under the magic $400k/year line that's he's also vowed (many, many times) is sacrosanct.

Now what?

Seems he wants to have his cake and eat it too, but sorry, not sorry, I'm calling him (and you) out on it.

Wait, so the AMT is just changing the rules on some (but not all) taxpayers if you don't like the results of the normal rules (that y'all created)? As bad as the standard rules are to begin with, this seems worse as you're CHANGING said rules at the last minute because you don't like the results. That doesn't seem morally right to me. "If we don't like the results of our primary set of rules because we don't think you're getting screwed enough, then we're going to hit you with a whole other set of rules to change those results".

Sounds a bit like charging people a toll for a road they no longer pay because they're working from home now. To wit: "We don't think you're paying enough tolls under your new circumstances, so we're going to charge them to you anyway."

While that example hasn't happened (YET!), it wouldn't surprise me if it eventually does, especially in super tax heavy places like NYC, so maybe I should stop giving them ideas. I, along with millions of others have fled those heavy handed taxes over the last decade, only to have the State of NY try to chase us down for taxes we don't owe because our residence status stopped before they became hypothetically due. (Which is to say they're threatening my wife with all kinds of things, from jail if she ever enters their jurisdiction again, to having her non-NY wages garnished if she doesn't just roll over and pay the income taxes for income she earned AFTER we moved. And we probably have no choice but to do so, because fighting them in court will be more expensive than just paying them to go away, AND THEY'RE COUNTING ON THAT!!)

I wonder how many others they've screwed over in a similar fashion? Likely millions.

That it just so happens is accurate.

(Bold emphasis items mine.)

Of course you do. Like most libs, you've never met a tax you don't like, especially when it's not going to apply to you.

You seem to forget (or just ignore) is that natural dilution will result in the same thing over the course of time. One generation spends a certain amount, and then they have to spread out what's left amongst 5 or 8 heirs (or whatever), who also spend a certain amount and have to leave what's left of THEIR share to another 5-8 heirs (or whatever) and pretty soon those long removed heirs are no longer rich (much less "superrich" (sic)), even by your standards. Hell, what I got from my parents was ALREADY reduced by 2/3rds because they had 3 kids who have to equally divide the total inheritance by 3 to begin with, so just in a single generation our "dynastic" wealth has lost 2/3rds of its value when measured per person.

Of course, your desires on this issue are purely driven by jealousy anyway. Then again, so are pretty much all of your tax proposals. "Don't tax you, don't tax me, tax that guy behind the tree..."

 

There is no way to verify the actual ballot once it is out of the mail in envelope. You seem to think election integrity is passe, that we don't need any.

 

It is odd you repeat most of what I said then call it bogus. All of the taxes you list, except buy, sales, property taxes, tangible personal property taxes, and wealth taxes, are INCOME taxes. The excepted five the federal government cannot and does not tax, other than certain sales taxes that equate to excise taxes.

I do not really care how some far out law professor or even Hamilton sings and dances trying to get a capitation or direct tax on wealth apportioned among the states on a state population basis.

 

You mean they tell lies they know are lies in order to get elected, and then once that's accomplished, they tell something that is probably still a lie, but is at least closer to the truth. That's what you meant, right?

Which clause or Amendment to the Constitution makes your statement true?

Done at the State level only. Though they are singly the most disgusting and unethical form of taxation we have, because it means you will never truly own your home that you "own", unless you pay an ever increasing annual rent payment to the State, that cannot and will not ever be paid off, even after your death. Yes, it's based on the hypothetical value of said property, which does (usually) increase, but that doesn't matter to people who intend to spend the rest of their lives there, and it diminishes the value of those properties after their death when it comes to leaving it to their kids, widows/widowers, or other surviving heirs.

And even with all that having been said, their Constitutionality is still very much a question, that has not ever been answered by any Court that I'm aware of. If I had enough money to be a "test case", I'd certainly be interested in making a suit on precisely those grounds to make property taxes go away forever, which would be a gift to everybody if I were to win.

All brought to you because of "fee simple" titling, which is a fancy legal way of saying the State, not you, retains ownership of your property forever, but will "allow" you to use it as long as you stay current with your annual rent owed to them, that increases every year. We need allodial titling, at the VERY least on primary residences, which is another fancy legal way of saying that YOU, and nobody else (including the State) owns your property or can charge you to continue owning it, unless you have given that right to someone voluntarily, say in the case of a mortgage.

The States would lose their collective minds, of course, as would local governments, but it's the only actual fair way to do things. And the States can (and most assuredly SHOULD) make up the revenue by increasing end-user (ultimate consumer) Sales Taxes and user fees on things like public transportation, private usage of roads, parks, and other infrastructure, which when push comes to shove, are the only truly fair forms of taxation that exists, with user fees being the best possible choice. There is zero reason that people who don't use those services should be paying MORE for them than people who do.

In a truly just society, those user fees would cover 100% of the cost associated with whatever they're paying for, but without subsidizing anything else. (For example, a weight/mile tax that covered construction and maintenance completely, but left nothing over for some other politician's pet-project. And if it was mord than needed, it should be refunded to those who paid it in the first place, and not made available for government to use on other things.

And government employees should not be wasting money by trying to make sure every possible dollar is spent, even if on useless items that they may never need. (I know this happens because I benefited from it by selling computers to government agencies who were desperate to blow their budget in the last few days/weeks of the fiscal year. Many times, those systems went into inventory, but in storage, and were sold years later for scrap value, having never even been turned on.) You fix that problem with zero-based budgeting.

Though I am covering a lot of territory in one relatively short (for me, anyway), simple post.

What clause or Amendment makes them Constitutionally allowed? Chapter and verse, please, as well as how your (or someone else's) interpretation applies.

Never mind the fact that estate taxes are immoral and evil even if somehow legal. They SHOULD not be legal, but even if they are, they should still not exist. And wouldn't if we had just lawmakers, but we don't, and haven't at any time that I've been alive, and perhaps much longer. The fact that they do exist makes me ill, even though they will never apply to me (or my heirs who actually suffer if they do), unless I hit the lottery or manage to invent something that makes me (deservedly) very wealthy in a very short amount of time.

Just because the IRS may have said that, a "fact" that you've provided no documentation of, doesn't mean it's Constitutional, or the right thing to do even if Constitutional. Anyone who likes them is just a lazy thief at heart.

If it's not income, it's not income, and redefining income to reach a desired outcome is just pathetic and greedy. Of course, income taxes are also immoral and should not exist.

Only sales taxes (of the actual end user), user fees, and (at the federal level) tariffs should be used to fund our government.

And tariffs should only be used to offset any effort to use cheap foreign labor to avoid paying Americans a market wage for the same work. To use Apple as a primo example, the only reason they offshore building of iPhones is so they can legally get away with paying 12-year-olds $0.25/day to assemble them. Use tariffs to make that cost the same as market priced labor here in the US removes the incentive to do so in the first place, and if it causes the price of iPhones (that are overpriced junk to begin with) to go up, so be it.

 

The only reason he doesn't care about election integrity is because the generally accepted "wisdom" is that those votes benefit democrats more than republicans. If that "wisdom" ever changes to republicans being the ones who benefit, all of a sudden he (and a LOT of other people, like Chuckie Schumer and Queen Nancy (don't do as I do, do as I say) Pelosi) will all of a sudden care... A lot!

 

Stay tuned. Right now we are in the evidence gathering stage. Very soon that evidence will be released.