Posted on 07/20/2010 3:00:44 AM PDT by Scanian
Well, it allowed them to do a progressive tax scheme, so.. Yes they could do that. And in a sense, already have.
Did you say you studied law / the constitution?
The income tax is NOT from Article 1 Section 8, that is from the 16th Amendment - prior to that, any tax had to be uniform (i.e. NOT progressive!).
Further, you are basically saying that a simple majority can by fiat take away the voting rights of the minority by delcaring them felons- thus cementing the hold to power of the majority. I doubt seriously that the founders would have allowed such a gaping loophole ...
Also - please tell me what you think "general welfare", as originally written -means and whose general welfare the congress was to provide for!
Also...
http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2007/08/12/bush-the-biggest-taxer-in-world-history/
2007
The dims took over and you can see how well increased taxes... marxism, racism and sharia affect our economy.
LLS
Ok, thanks! Still not sure why you infer I am ignorant of economic data, because I have always held that lower tax rates provide higher tax revenues, ceteris paribus (maybe I need to increase my post count on the subject). The reason being individuals and corporations will save on the effort to hide or redirect income when the penalty for not doing so is removed. The net gain is time and expenses avoided by not having to twist oneself into a taxable pretzel.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but the final irony is that whether tax rates are raised or lowered, the taxes collected by the Feds amount to about 20% of GDP. I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that the volume is now lower as a fraction than it was under Pres. Bush. Democrats could learn this, but, I guess they’re as invincibly ignorant on this as they are on so many common sense issues.
The drop or rise in unemployment itself isn’t the true story in that graph. That in itself is somewhat cyclical. But look at what happened beginning in 1996 when they began monkeying around with unemployment benefits.
The peaks and the valleys, which had before 1996 lagged about a year behind actual unemployment and mirrored that somewhat, began to go completely out of whack.
The point with this graph is not who was responsible for increasing unemployment benefits, the point is simply that increasing unemployment benefits has the effect of increasing unemployment, which is Arthur Laffer’s point in his excellent Wall Street Journal article of a couple of weeks ago.
Good posts, thesharkboy...
Yes, and the graph is back now to the pre-96 way too in the last year or so.
He would be the greatest economic genius of all time if he could pick where t* should be in what conditions and variables are going on such as wars or disasters or boom times.
True enough.
But just because a tool cannot provide 100% accuracy does not render the tool invalid.
I may make the prediction that certain atmospheric conditions may produce a given effect.
Just because those guidelines are not accurate to several decimal points does not mean those guidelines are not a useful predictor of weather.
You cannot say that. There is not enough data to make that assumption. If it follows by this time next year, I may be willing to consider that is a possibility.
With over 10% unemployment, the GOP just handed Obambi a lot of ammo for November.
Kind of wondered what the play book would be to blow the election.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.