Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Article I Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
Sounds like it does to me.
Really? If that phrase was intended to give Congress unlimited power to do any damned thing they wanted, why did the framers bother to list all those very specific powers of Congress in that Article? What was the point?
What do you mean, it is one of the power listed.
If the phrase was not intended to give Congress the power to provide for he general welfare of the US, why would they put it in the Constitution? What was the point?
I previously explained why not a flat tax. It is a tax paid by the poor with money they need for necessities while lowering the tax on the rich who pay taxes with money used for luxuries. A flat tax places an disproportionate relative burden on the poor.
On an individual basis, yes, but in total the rich pay much more.
Small compensation to the poor who cannot eat because of a FLAT TAX, I think.
And would the rich pay more?
I sort of doubt it.
Even the flat tax codes would be onerous tomes covering things like what is and what is not an expense of a business.
In fact MOST of the tax code that everyone complains about is comprised of those specifics.
As long as a rich man can write off his chauffer and body guards, and have the company pay for it, while the working stiffs have to pay to go to work and can't write any of it off, the idea of a flat tax being more FAIR is just so much neo-con bullshit.
it was called the tech bubble.
Wow, a "tech bubble", like Bush's real estate bubble and Reagan's micro computer bubble.
But somehow, despite a 30% tax increase, and the temendous discouragement of work that provided, and just like Cons today, Gringrich and all the other Cons predicting economic collapse -- the economy managed to have a "bubble" and create 22 million jobs.
Simply amazing.
Your history is not like our Earth history.
It's damned entertaining, though.
Why is Social Security being talked about in a conversation concerning paying the nation's bills and balancing the budget? Isn't that supposed to be all about people's retirements? It's not technically a tax, so they keep telling us. ....
Whoever said SS was not a tax? It's taken manditorily from your salary by the Govt and spent by the Govt, and its called a tax. Who claims it's not a tax? Heck, the Govt doesn't even pretend to keep it separate these days, the SS tax has been used to finance the deficits since the 80s.
Actually, it's the government that keeps telling us it's not really a tax, but just something they're putting by for your retirement for your own good.
It's allegedly not intended to go to paying for the federal government's debts. The fact that they constantly raid the SS fund doesn't change their official dribble on the subject at all, since they do leave nice little IOUs in there so that they can pretend it was just a loan.
I'm in favor of a flat tax.
There are 300 million people in the US. How about a flat tax of $10k for each person? Eliminate all other federal taxes.
I think the government ought to be able to manage to cover expenses on that amount of money. If you are married and have 3 kids, your household share of tax is $50k, if you are single and no kids, your share is $10k.
Anything you earn above and beyond your fair share of the tax burden is yours to do with as you see fit.
Are you insane? MOST people do not make 50k dumb ass.
Really? If that phrase was intended to give Congress unlimited power to do any damned thing they wanted, why did the framers bother to list all those very specific powers of Congress in that Article? What was the point?
What do you mean, it is one of the power listed.
If the phrase was not intended to give Congress the power to provide for he general welfare of the US, why would they put it in the Constitution? What was the point?
Actually, sweetie, it's NOT a power listed. It's an explanation for a power listed, which is the power to collect taxes, levies, duties, etc. Perhaps if you read the entire Article, rather than your highly expurgated and mangled cherry-picking, you would know that.
Wow, a "tech bubble", like Bush's real estate bubble and Reagan's micro computer bubble.
But somehow, despite a 30% tax increase, and the temendous discouragement of work that provided, and just like Cons today, Gringrich and all the other Cons predicting economic collapse -- the economy managed to have a "bubble" and create 22 million jobs.
Simply amazing.
Your history is not like our Earth history.
It's damned entertaining, though.
Thanks. It's accurate too, unless there was an assertion I made you'd care to contest.
Your history is not like our Earth history.
It's damned entertaining, though.
Thanks. It's accurate too, unless there was an assertion I made you'd care to contest.
Unfortunately, it was so utterly and completely unrelated to anything that happened in real life, it would be impossible for me to try to dispute it point by point. Pretty much all I can do is say, "Bwahahahahahahahaha!!!!" to the whole thing.
Whoever said SS was not a tax? It's taken manditorily from your salary by the Govt and spent by the Govt, and its called a tax. Who claims it's not a tax? Heck, the Govt doesn't even pretend to keep it separate these days, the SS tax has been used to finance the deficits since the 80s.
Actually, it's the government that keeps telling us it's not really a tax, but just something they're putting by for your retirement for your own good.
Link where the Govt claims SS taxes are not taxes?
I've never had the Govt tell me it wasn't a tax. In fact on my paycheck it says "FICA tax."
It's allegedly not intended to go to paying for the federal government's debts. The fact that they constantly raid the SS fund doesn't change their official dribble on the subject at all, since they do leave nice little IOUs in there so that they can pretend it was just a loan.
Cite to official dribble, please.
Whoever said SS was not a tax? It's taken manditorily from your salary by the Govt and spent by the Govt, and its called a tax. Who claims it's not a tax? Heck, the Govt doesn't even pretend to keep it separate these days, the SS tax has been used to finance the deficits since the 80s.
Actually, it's the government that keeps telling us it's not really a tax, but just something they're putting by for your retirement for your own good.
Link where the Govt claims SS taxes are not taxes?
I've never had the Govt tell me it wasn't a tax. In fact on my paycheck it says "FICA tax."
It's allegedly not intended to go to paying for the federal government's debts. The fact that they constantly raid the SS fund doesn't change their official dribble on the subject at all, since they do leave nice little IOUs in there so that they can pretend it was just a loan.
Cite to official dribble, please.
On an individual basis, yes, but in total the rich pay much more.
Small compensation to the poor who cannot eat because of a FLAT TAX, I think.
And would the rich pay more?
I sort of doubt it.
Even the flat tax codes would be onerous tomes covering things like what is and what is not an expense of a business.
In fact MOST of the tax code that everyone complains about is comprised of those specifics.
As long as a rich man can write off his chauffer and body guards, and have the company pay for it, while the working stiffs have to pay to go to work and can't write any of it off, the idea of a flat tax being more FAIR is just so much neo-con bullshit.
Two words: Food Stamps ... who pays more into them and who uses them more?
Nice try. Your chauffeur analogy isn't even that accurate, look into tax laws a bit more, you do know that low income people can write off computers for job searching (even if they already have a job), craft supplies even if all you do is sell one (business expense), etc. just as much as a wealthy person can, you just have to prove it like they do.
Actually, it's the government that keeps telling us it's not really a tax, but just something they're putting by for your retirement for your own good.
Link where the Govt claims SS taxes are not taxes?
I've never had the Govt tell me it wasn't a tax. In fact on my paycheck it says "FICA tax."
It's allegedly not intended to go to paying for the federal government's debts. The fact that they constantly raid the SS fund doesn't change their official dribble on the subject at all, since they do leave nice little IOUs in there so that they can pretend it was just a loan.
Cite to official dribble, please.
You've never heard the government say that Social Security isn't intended to be a tax to fund the federal government? Not my problem. Where were you when Al Gore kept blathering about the "lockbox"? Who's been keeping a secret from you the cute little fiction of "borrowing" from the Social Security fund, because it's not supposed to be for funding the government?
FYI, I have no idea what your employer prints on your paystub, and it's not really my problem. The government officially refers to them as "FICA contributions".
The full text of the Social Security Act is available online. Feel free to look it up and read it. It's pretty clear that it doesn't exist to fund the federal government, whatever shenanigans they've been up to since then. The arguments made in favor of passage of the Social Security Act, which included that it should be separate from the rest of the budget, are part of the public record. Again, that you're not aware of history is not my problem.
What do you mean, it is one of the power listed.
If the phrase was not intended to give Congress the power to provide for he general welfare of the US, why would they put it in the Constitution? What was the point?
Actually, sweetie, it's NOT a power listed. It's an explanation for a power listed, which is the power to collect taxes, levies, duties, etc. Perhaps if you read the entire Article, rather than your highly expurgated and mangled cherry-picking, you would know that.
Actually, darling, it is listed right there in Section 8, the very first of the listed powers of Congress, each of which is prefaced by "To...", each of which is set off by a semicolon:
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
etc.
And I agree, it is an explanation of a power, a power to provide for the general welfare as well as the other things identified in the clause.
Thanks. It's accurate too, unless there was an assertion I made you'd care to contest.
Unfortunately, it was so utterly and completely unrelated to anything that happened in real life, it would be impossible for me to try to dispute it point by point. Pretty much all I can do is say, "Bwahahahahahahahaha!!!!" to the whole thing.
Oh honey, that is so cute! You could not identify even one erroneous assertion I made.
Unfortunately, it was so utterly and completely unrelated to anything that happened in real life, it would be impossible for me to try to dispute it point by point. Pretty much all I can do is say, "Bwahahahahahahahaha!!!!" to the whole thing.
Oh honey, that is so cute! You could not identify even one erroneous assertion I made.
Oh, honey, that is so NOT cute! I did identify one: your entire post.
Probably the single largest deduction for most people that itemize is the interest on their mortgage. I purchased much less house than I could afford way back when. It wasn't until I stopped being able to declare myself as a head of household that itemizing actually worked for me. And today, most of that is due to charity.You are truly an misinformed
The poor cannot write off anything because, they're too poor to gain any benefit from writing stuff off.
The poor take the standard writeoff every time.
Some of the more affluent middle class make enough to use deductions, but the poor?
Not a chance.
Actually, it's the government that keeps telling us it's not really a tax, but just something they're putting by for your retirement for your own good.
Link where the Govt claims SS taxes are not taxes?
I've never had the Govt tell me it wasn't a tax. In fact on my paycheck it says "FICA tax."
It's allegedly not intended to go to paying for the federal government's debts. The fact that they constantly raid the SS fund doesn't change their official dribble on the subject at all, since they do leave nice little IOUs in there so that they can pretend it was just a loan.
Cite to official dribble, please.
I thought I'd help you out, sweetie, on this. Here's the cite to the Social Security Administration website, and you can read the very first sentence and see how the government characterizes SS payments.
Social Security Update 2009
You can thank me later, hon.
Actually, sweetie, it's NOT a power listed. It's an explanation for a power listed, which is the power to collect taxes, levies, duties, etc. Perhaps if you read the entire Article, rather than your highly expurgated and mangled cherry-picking, you would know that.
Actually, darling, it is listed right there in Section 8, the very first of the listed powers of Congress, each of which is prefaced by "To...", each of which is set off by a semicolon:
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
etc.
And I agree, it is an explanation of a power, a power to provide for the general welfare as well as the other things identified in the clause.
Providing for the general welfare can't be a power AND the explanation for itself. Is English not your first language?
Let me translate for the education-impaired:
. . . Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;
". . . Imposts and excises, IN ORDER to pay the debts and provide for the common defense . . ." is what that actually means. You will notice that each of the delineated powers, such as "To lay and collect taxes . . ." and "To borrow money . . ." and "To regulate commerce . . ." is listed in its own separate paragraph, the 18th-century equivalent of bulleting. However, ". . . to pay debts . . ." is not. It's listed as part of the paragraph concerning taxes, excises, etc. Why? Because it's not a power being granted. It's an explanation of WHY the power to collect taxes and such is being granted.
The Article explains what it means by "general welfare" when it specifies duties of Congress, just as it goes on to explain what it means by "common defense" when it lays out the specific military services Congress can set up and by what method. Nothing in the original text of the Constitution is written to be a blank carte blanche of power to any branch of government.
As I said, learn to read for context.
Wow, a "tech bubble", like Bush's real estate bubble and Reagan's micro computer bubble.
But somehow, despite a 30% tax increase, and the temendous discouragement of work that provided, and just like Cons today, Gringrich and all the other Cons predicting economic collapse -- the economy managed to have a "bubble" and create 22 million jobs.
Simply amazing.
Your history is not like our Earth history.
It's damned entertaining, though.
Thanks. It's accurate too, unless there was an assertion I made you'd care to contest.
Link where the Govt claims SS taxes are not taxes?
I've never had the Govt tell me it wasn't a tax. In fact on my paycheck it says "FICA tax."
Cite to official dribble, please.
You've never heard the government say that Social Security isn't intended to be a tax to fund the federal government? Not my problem. Where were you when Al Gore kept blathering about the "lockbox"? Who's been keeping a secret from you the cute little fiction of "borrowing" from the Social Security fund, because it's not supposed to be for funding the government?
FYI, I have no idea what your employer prints on your paystub, and it's not really my problem. The government officially refers to them as "FICA contributions".
The full text of the Social Security Act is available online. Feel free to look it up and read it. It's pretty clear that it doesn't exist to fund the federal government, whatever shenanigans they've been up to since then. The arguments made in favor of passage of the Social Security Act, which included that it should be separate from the rest of the budget, are part of the public record. Again, that you're not aware of history is not my problem.
No, I didn't see a citation to back up your position in your post here, dear, but if you look in the post immediately above it, you can see where I helped you out.
