Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Editorial
Tax Cuts and Consequences
The tax system in the United States is supposed to mitigate inequality. But a recent report by Congresss budget agency provides fresh evidence that Bush-era tax cuts have done more to reinforce inequality than to redress it.
The agency found that in 2004, the latest year for which comprehensive data were available, the top 1 percent of households pocketed 14 percent of total after-tax income in the United States, up from 12.2 percent in 2003. That increase, the third largest in one year since the agency started keeping track in 1979, works out to an extra $128 billion. And yet despite that hefty gain, the effective federal tax rate of the top 1 percent decreased slightly.
I agree, the legislature is charged with 'levying taxes', but where for the purpose of mitigating inequality? LOL! Methinks the NYTimes needs better editors for writing their main editorial?Great question.
In law school, I wrote a paper arguing that the only legitimate federal spending was in support of Article I powers. That means the bulk of taxing and spending by the federal government is unConstitutional. There is no Constitutional authority for welfare, Social Security, the Dept. of Education, you name it.
I even asked my Constitutional law professor: if it's Constitutional to tax 15 or 30 percent of our incomes, why not 99 percent? He said, "no problem" (legally, that is). Now THAT is a scary thought.
It all makes a mockery of the idea of limited government. The federal government has assumed UNLIMITED POWER to tax and spend --- any time, anywhere, for any purpose, at any amount. And see how they do!
I agree, the legislature is charged with 'levying taxes', but where for the purpose of mitigating inequality? LOL! Methinks the NYTimes needs better editors for writing their main editorial?
Yeah, that's unusually awkward liberal bias, even for the Times. How about the raising armies part? Better phrased, "I, Sally Bignose Liberal, believe that taxes are great and grand because they help to mitigage inequality. But..."
Where in the constitution does it say I can't drive 55?
Where in the constitution does it say I can't drive 55?
It doesn't matter, since speed limits, including those on federal highways, are set at the state level.
Nothing new, anyone who gives money to anyone sets conditions. Hence the original 55mph speed limit, the 21 drinking age, and the .08 BAC standard.
The solomon act does the same thing for recruiting.
IF you want local control you must live on local money.
Mon frere, I must disagree!
You can't stay local if the federal government won't let you keep the money to stay local. The citizens of South Dakota fork over more of their earnings to the federal budget than to South Dakota itself. I'm sure South Dakota could afford fine highways of its own if it weren't competing with the federal government for tax dollars. So to tell South Dakota to "lump it or leave it" isn't really fair... because they're not allowed to leave!
The preamble to the Constitution speaks of insuring domestic tranquility and promoting the general Welfare. How do you interpret this? Did the founding fathers think that the government, via taxation, should help those who fall on hard times?
I would say not, since the text of the constitution doesn't support it.
Good point. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness."in in the Declaration of Independence but not in the constitution. Therefore, did the founding fathers intend for us to believe in God.
Sorry but I just love these tests of intellectual consistency and honesty.
