Top 1% file class action suit for being forced to pay 40% of income taxes.

[Rshermr]

Looks as if I've won the bet.

Yeah... God forbid I spend time with my family, you idiot...

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

You came to defend that the United States is made up 'of the people'... and this is inherently false... as already explained, it was the states that ratified the constitution, empowering the federal government by their charge.. not the popular vote or will of the individual citizenry..

The 10th amendment is very simple to understand.. The Constitution itself is a LIMITING document. Granting specific powers and charges to the federal government. The states are the entities that gave/give the fed its power. The 10th amendment ensures that any power not SPECIFICALLY GRANTED (as in your little pet entitlements are not specifically granted) is then reserved or held by the states that ratified the federal government, and if the states do not wield that power, then the power is reserved for the people themselves...

I.E. There is no power granted to the fed to take care of your individual wants and needs. That power would have been granted by the states to the fed in a specific statement in the constitution. So, at the state level, the individual state's constitution may or may not deal with some sort of entitlement power wherein individual needs are the responsibility of the state under whatever criteria they deem. If there is not a charge to the state thru its own governing powers, THEN THAT POWER OR RESPONSIBILITY SITS DIRECTLY ON THE INDIVIDUAL WHO HAS THE WANT OR NEED.. Otherwise stated they are empowered to take care of themselves

Now.... back to mommy's basement to your bong and cheetos

So, in your opinion the 10th Amendment and the Constitution have been violated by every Supreme Court Decision since and including Marbury v. Madison, is that correct? That Nullification and Secession are legal actions by any state when the state or an individual person decides acts of Congress are not of their liking? Is that correct?

My mother passed away in 2008 and I haven't lived in my parents home since I left for Boot Camp in 1967 - so take your fucking personal attacks and shove 'em up your ass. You're not only stupid, you're an asshole too.

Hell. Diamond Dave is a con tool asshole. He reads dogma from bat shit crazy web sites and believes it. Because he WANTS to believe it. Because it makes him mad. And he LOVES being mad. Not unique to DD. Turns out about 15% of our population are like that. They like to be told what to believe. Makes it easy for them, puts their little universe in order, with very little effort on their part.
So, then you make an obviously rational argument. You end up, should they stay engaged, putting them in a corner. At which time they do this juvenile attack thing.
This poor me, I only make a few million a year, why am I paying all of these taxes issue, is probably difficult for the poor con mind to understand. Perhaps this article puts it in perspective:
Top 1% Got 93% of Income Growth as Rich-Poor Gap Widened - Bloomberg

The article describes the percentage of the income growth going to various income levels. The important thing in a nutshell is that the upper 1% end up with 93% of the pie, and the rest of the 99% get to share the remaining 7%. And, this is pretty unique to the US among the top 35 industrial nations. The real issue, beyond the obvious, is that this percentage, 93% now, has been growing since the 1980's. And fuels heavily the backlash that we see today with the occupy movement, and worker dissatisfaction. And, helps to explain why we just saw the results in the election that we saw.

 

[Old Rocks]

What doya want Edward? A socialist revolution?

That is what happens when wealth distribution gets too lopsided.

with 1% paying 40%
of taxes I'm not surprised they want a revolution or at least a court settlement.

The 1% pays a much lower rate, in reality, than do the middle class. Romney's 13% is a prime example. Yet they pay 40%. So what does that say about the distribution of income?

By all means, let us get it so that the 1% pays only about 10% of the taxes, at a rate the same as we in the middle class pay. That money that presently goes to the top, going to the bottom instead, to all those neccessary but low paying jobs, would raise a bunch of peoples income to the point they would be taxpayers. And they would have money to spend on consumables, and increase economic growth.

 

[JakeStarkey]

No wonder you are not considered a serious poster here.

This seems a clear violation of the equal protection clause. Does anyone doubt it?

 

[DiamondDave]

Yeah... God forbid I spend time with my family, you idiot...

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

You came to defend that the United States is made up 'of the people'... and this is inherently false... as already explained, it was the states that ratified the constitution, empowering the federal government by their charge.. not the popular vote or will of the individual citizenry..

The 10th amendment is very simple to understand.. The Constitution itself is a LIMITING document. Granting specific powers and charges to the federal government. The states are the entities that gave/give the fed its power. The 10th amendment ensures that any power not SPECIFICALLY GRANTED (as in your little pet entitlements are not specifically granted) is then reserved or held by the states that ratified the federal government, and if the states do not wield that power, then the power is reserved for the people themselves...

I.E. There is no power granted to the fed to take care of your individual wants and needs. That power would have been granted by the states to the fed in a specific statement in the constitution. So, at the state level, the individual state's constitution may or may not deal with some sort of entitlement power wherein individual needs are the responsibility of the state under whatever criteria they deem. If there is not a charge to the state thru its own governing powers, THEN THAT POWER OR RESPONSIBILITY SITS DIRECTLY ON THE INDIVIDUAL WHO HAS THE WANT OR NEED.. Otherwise stated they are empowered to take care of themselves

Now.... back to mommy's basement to your bong and cheetos

So, in your opinion the 10th Amendment and the Constitution have been violated by every Supreme Court Decision since and including Marbury v. Madison, is that correct? That Nullification and Secession are legal actions by any state when the state or an individual person decides acts of Congress are not of their liking? Is that correct?

My mother passed away in 2008 and I haven't lived in my parents home since I left for Boot Camp in 1967 - so take your fucking personal attacks and shove 'em up your ass. You're not only stupid, you're an asshole too.

Hell. Diamond Dave is a con tool asshole. He reads dogma from bat shit crazy web sites and believes it. Because he WANTS to believe it. Because it makes him mad. And he LOVES being mad. Not unique to DD. Turns out about 15% of our population are like that. They like to be told what to believe. Makes it easy for them, puts their little universe in order, with very little effort on their part.
So, then you make an obviously rational argument. You end up, should they stay engaged, putting them in a corner. At which time they do this juvenile attack thing.
This poor me, I only make a few million a year, why am I paying all of these taxes issue, is probably difficult for the poor con mind to understand. Perhaps this article puts it in perspective:
Top 1% Got 93% of Income Growth as Rich-Poor Gap Widened - Bloomberg

The article describes the percentage of the income growth going to various income levels. The important thing in a nutshell is that the upper 1% end up with 93% of the pie, and the rest of the 99% get to share the remaining 7%. And, this is pretty unique to the US among the top 35 industrial nations. The real issue, beyond the obvious, is that this percentage, 93% now, has been growing since the 1980's. And fuels heavily the backlash that we see today with the occupy movement, and worker dissatisfaction. And, helps to explain why we just saw the results in the election that we saw.

Really?? Please show anything I have posted from some rightwing or 'batshit crazy' website... the ONLY source I have used is usconstitution.net...

wry has made no rational argument... wry, and evidently you, refuse to use the constitution as COMPLETELY written...

so go back to your articles supporting wealth redistribution against anything dealing with true freedom.. you are not guaranteed an outcome, whether you want it or not... whether you want the government to do something about it or not

 

[DiamondDave]

What doya want Edward? A socialist revolution?

That is what happens when wealth distribution gets too lopsided.

with 1% paying 40%
of taxes I'm not surprised they want a revolution or at least a court settlement.

The 1% pays a much lower rate, in reality, than do the middle class. Romney's 13% is a prime example. Yet they pay 40%. So what does that say about the distribution of income?

By all means, let us get it so that the 1% pays only about 10% of the taxes, at a rate the same as we in the middle class pay. That money that presently goes to the top, going to the bottom instead, to all those neccessary but low paying jobs, would raise a bunch of peoples income to the point they would be taxpayers. And they would have money to spend on consumables, and increase economic growth.

Then support a complete flat tax with no deductions, loopholes, exceptions, or exemptions on every last dollar of income for every person... then you do not have complaints that person X is paying a lower rate than person Y

 

[kwc57]

What do the one percent want? More of the wealth of the nation?

They certainly don't want the rest of America to get tired of making up 99% of the Armed forces.

I may not be top 1%.. but I am ~top5%... and what I want.. equal treatment by government under law... I don't want a cheaper rate than person X, but I also don't want a higher rate than person Y, and I certainly don't want person Z paying zero on federal income tax while earning an income

And funny.. I did serve in the Army

Damn it!

 

[Wry Catcher]

Yeah... God forbid I spend time with my family, you idiot...

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

You came to defend that the United States is made up 'of the people'... and this is inherently false... as already explained, it was the states that ratified the constitution, empowering the federal government by their charge.. not the popular vote or will of the individual citizenry..

The 10th amendment is very simple to understand.. The Constitution itself is a LIMITING document. Granting specific powers and charges to the federal government. The states are the entities that gave/give the fed its power. The 10th amendment ensures that any power not SPECIFICALLY GRANTED (as in your little pet entitlements are not specifically granted) is then reserved or held by the states that ratified the federal government, and if the states do not wield that power, then the power is reserved for the people themselves...

I.E. There is no power granted to the fed to take care of your individual wants and needs. That power would have been granted by the states to the fed in a specific statement in the constitution. So, at the state level, the individual state's constitution may or may not deal with some sort of entitlement power wherein individual needs are the responsibility of the state under whatever criteria they deem. If there is not a charge to the state thru its own governing powers, THEN THAT POWER OR RESPONSIBILITY SITS DIRECTLY ON THE INDIVIDUAL WHO HAS THE WANT OR NEED.. Otherwise stated they are empowered to take care of themselves

Now.... back to mommy's basement to your bong and cheetos

So, in your opinion the 10th Amendment and the Constitution have been violated by every Supreme Court Decision since and including Marbury v. Madison, is that correct? That Nullification and Secession are legal actions by any state when the state or an individual person decides acts of Congress are not of their liking? Is that correct?

My mother passed away in 2008 and I haven't lived in my parents home since I left for Boot Camp in 1967 - so take your fucking personal attacks and shove 'em up your ass. You're not only stupid, you're an asshole too.

No... I may be an asshole, and can fully admit when I am... but it takes your special kind of stupid to not understand what is written in the constitution in fucking English... the 10th Amendment is VERY clear.... even if government has thwarted the constitution numerous times over the years and decades and centuries by grabbing power it does not have constitutionally charged... and this has nothing to do with 'liking', it has to do with what is actually written and granted in the constitution... if you cannot understand article 1 section 8 and the 10th amendment, then you are lost

There is much ambiguity in the Constitution, that you believe otherwise is foolish. I've found that the willfully ignorant are insufferable so I will not waste my time to offer links of evidence. If you're curious and not willfully ignorant do some research but be careful, I've heard that cognitive dissonance can create a need for strong drink.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

There is much ambiguity in the Constitution,

a liberal socialist will adopt that lie only so our conservative Republican Constitution can be treasonously read as a liberal socialist document.

Obviously the Constitution would never have been ratified and America would not exist if its writers had said, don't worry its very ambiguous and can mean anything you want it to mean including that Anti-American socialism can be seen as a good thing.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Only a reactionary extremist would deny this, either because of mental feebleness, ignorance, or malignant motivation.

In EB's case, he is driven by all three disqualifications.

There is much ambiguity in the Constitution,

a liberal socialist will adopt that lie only so our conservative Republican Constitution can be treasonously read as a liberal socialist document.

Obviously the Constitution would never have been ratified and America would not exist if its writers had said, don't worry its very ambiguous and can mean anything you want it to mean including that Anti-American socialism can be seen as a good thing.

 

[bornright]

How about no taxation without representation? Is what Obama calls the top 1% have representation?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

How about no taxation without representation? Is what Obama calls the top 1% have representation?

what????

 

[Wry Catcher]

So, in your opinion the 10th Amendment and the Constitution have been violated by every Supreme Court Decision since and including Marbury v. Madison, is that correct? That Nullification and Secession are legal actions by any state when the state or an individual person decides acts of Congress are not of their liking? Is that correct?

My mother passed away in 2008 and I haven't lived in my parents home since I left for Boot Camp in 1967 - so take your fucking personal attacks and shove 'em up your ass. You're not only stupid, you're an asshole too.

Hell. Diamond Dave is a con tool asshole. He reads dogma from bat shit crazy web sites and believes it. Because he WANTS to believe it. Because it makes him mad. And he LOVES being mad. Not unique to DD. Turns out about 15% of our population are like that. They like to be told what to believe. Makes it easy for them, puts their little universe in order, with very little effort on their part.
So, then you make an obviously rational argument. You end up, should they stay engaged, putting them in a corner. At which time they do this juvenile attack thing.
This poor me, I only make a few million a year, why am I paying all of these taxes issue, is probably difficult for the poor con mind to understand. Perhaps this article puts it in perspective:
Top 1% Got 93% of Income Growth as Rich-Poor Gap Widened - Bloomberg

The article describes the percentage of the income growth going to various income levels. The important thing in a nutshell is that the upper 1% end up with 93% of the pie, and the rest of the 99% get to share the remaining 7%. And, this is pretty unique to the US among the top 35 industrial nations. The real issue, beyond the obvious, is that this percentage, 93% now, has been growing since the 1980's. And fuels heavily the backlash that we see today with the occupy movement, and worker dissatisfaction. And, helps to explain why we just saw the results in the election that we saw.

Really?? Please show anything I have posted from some rightwing or 'batshit crazy' website... the ONLY source I have used is usconstitution.net...

wry has made no rational argument... wry, and evidently you, refuse to use the constitution as COMPLETELY written...

so go back to your articles supporting wealth redistribution against anything dealing with true freedom.. you are not guaranteed an outcome, whether you want it or not... whether you want the government to do something about it or not

Wry has taken ConLaw, have you DD? Where do you get your 'information' if not from some right wing source? If you have not been trained in the law, don't understand the principle of Stare Decisis and seem to repeat the same hackneyed arguments of other right wing posters I suppose we can conclude your opinion on the Constitution is just that an opinion based on what you've heard not learned.

 

[DiamondDave]

Hell. Diamond Dave is a con tool asshole. He reads dogma from bat shit crazy web sites and believes it. Because he WANTS to believe it. Because it makes him mad. And he LOVES being mad. Not unique to DD. Turns out about 15% of our population are like that. They like to be told what to believe. Makes it easy for them, puts their little universe in order, with very little effort on their part.
So, then you make an obviously rational argument. You end up, should they stay engaged, putting them in a corner. At which time they do this juvenile attack thing.
This poor me, I only make a few million a year, why am I paying all of these taxes issue, is probably difficult for the poor con mind to understand. Perhaps this article puts it in perspective:
Top 1% Got 93% of Income Growth as Rich-Poor Gap Widened - Bloomberg

The article describes the percentage of the income growth going to various income levels. The important thing in a nutshell is that the upper 1% end up with 93% of the pie, and the rest of the 99% get to share the remaining 7%. And, this is pretty unique to the US among the top 35 industrial nations. The real issue, beyond the obvious, is that this percentage, 93% now, has been growing since the 1980's. And fuels heavily the backlash that we see today with the occupy movement, and worker dissatisfaction. And, helps to explain why we just saw the results in the election that we saw.

Really?? Please show anything I have posted from some rightwing or 'batshit crazy' website... the ONLY source I have used is usconstitution.net...

wry has made no rational argument... wry, and evidently you, refuse to use the constitution as COMPLETELY written...

so go back to your articles supporting wealth redistribution against anything dealing with true freedom.. you are not guaranteed an outcome, whether you want it or not... whether you want the government to do something about it or not

Wry has taken ConLaw, have you DD? Where do you get your 'information' if not from some right wing source? If you have not been trained in the law, don't understand the principle of Stare Decisis and seem to repeat the same hackneyed arguments of other right wing posters I suppose we can conclude your opinion on the Constitution is just that an opinion based on what you've heard not learned.

Funny... Wry, who speaketh in the 3rd person, is not the only one who has gone to college.... just as I am not the only person to have a passion for our American history....

Now, precedent, without granted power MEANS NOTHING.. and as I have shown you and others many times, there is no power for entitlement granted to the fed by the constitution.. it is a power the government grabbed for itself, wrongfully

I also passed English.. something it appears that you have not, since you cannot understand how the Constitution is actually written

So... you can go fuck yourself....

 

[Wry Catcher]

Really?? Please show anything I have posted from some rightwing or 'batshit crazy' website... the ONLY source I have used is usconstitution.net...

wry has made no rational argument... wry, and evidently you, refuse to use the constitution as COMPLETELY written...

so go back to your articles supporting wealth redistribution against anything dealing with true freedom.. you are not guaranteed an outcome, whether you want it or not... whether you want the government to do something about it or not

Wry has taken ConLaw, have you DD? Where do you get your 'information' if not from some right wing source? If you have not been trained in the law, don't understand the principle of Stare Decisis and seem to repeat the same hackneyed arguments of other right wing posters I suppose we can conclude your opinion on the Constitution is just that an opinion based on what you've heard not learned.

Funny... Wry, who speaketh in the 3rd person, is not the only one who has gone to college.... just as I am not the only person to have a passion for our American history....

Now, precedent, without granted power MEANS NOTHING.. and as I have shown you and others many times, there is no power for entitlement granted to the fed by the constitution.. it is a power the government grabbed for itself, wrongfully

I also passed English.. something it appears that you have not, since you cannot understand how the Constitution is actually written

So... you can go fuck yourself....

You passed English yet tell me to "go fuck myself"!? That is quite funny. Funnier still is your claim that Marbury v. Madison "MEANS NOTHING" yet you claim to have studied history.

How is it out there on the fringe?

 

[JakeStarkey]

The fringer extremists and libertarians deny the effect and fact of American history.

That DD does not like Madison vs. Marbury means absolutely nothing.

 

[usmcstinger]

Life is not fair and not all people are equal. However, everyone has the freedom to do as well as they want to.

The most important characteristic is a strong work ethic.
Others are:
The ability to make sacrifices.
Risk taking
Some will require degrees in higher education.
People with just a High School Diploma can become millionaires.
The ability to self educate.

There are many interesting stories about how people succeeded.
For example : Two young men who started with a small Hardware Store in Brooklyn, NY and created Home Depot.

A friend of mine who created a Chemical Pollution Company that he sold for over a million dollars and stayed on for a few years as a very well paid consultant.

We are free to make any personal choices. Some will make bad ones and some will make good ones. However, people must understand the meaning of personal responsibility.

 

[bripat9643]

What doya want Edward? A socialist revolution?

That is what happens when wealth distribution gets too lopsided.

Wrong. This is what happens when leaches and ticks on the ass of society multiply.

Idealy would it happen? No. Then again, ideally humans would be motivated to work for the greater good in a socialist state but we know that does not happen.

You must be joking. What is "ideal" about human beings behaving like bees in a hive? HUman beings exist to serve their own purposes, not the purposes of a bunch of bootlicking thugs.

So we pick a middle ground.

BWHAHAHAHA!

 

[bripat9643]

What do the one percent want? More of the wealth of the nation?

They certainly don't want the rest of America to get tired of making up 99% of the Armed forces.

It isn't the nation's wealth, asshole. It's theirs.

 

[bripat9643]

Edward, step back for a moment and look at the larger picture. What has happened places where wealth distribution got too off kilter?

According to your definition of "too off kilter," they became fabulously wealthy.

The 99% strike back and sometimes over-react and you end up with a socialist country.

So pay the protection money or we'll kill you? Is that your message of social morality?

So Conservatively I like to be careful with this country that has treated me very well.

Yes, it has treated ticks on the ass of society quite well.

 

[bripat9643]

You know, please say you know, the reasons for the socialist revolution spree of the last century.

The reason is the fact that all the professional intellectuals are on the government payroll. Your theory is Marxist propaganda.

Edward, you seem fairly well read, you know this, right? You read about it with an open mind or at least like an enemy who would like to keep it from happening here?

That sounds like a threat.