The Constitution says that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process, meaning a trial and jury. At what point, after having gained wealth, does the Constitution no longer apply, and they're free to be looted, their wealth taken?
I am guessing that you are referring to taxation? If you are, taxes and tax laws are incredibly complex. The basics though, are that taxes are in place to fund government programs which the general public cannot go without. Most of these programs the general public votes on, (however indirectly it may be, ie- state representatives).
In short, without taxes we would not have many of the amenities that this country has. Example, a military, hospitals, public schools, municipal water...
Although, I would say that taxes are too high, and are imposed on too many items that the public buys. And that too much is taken out of income, and then sometimes not returned when income taxes are filed.
no, I'm not talking about taxation, just in general. I asked the question, and asked exactly what I meant to ask.
This is the only time I will use your quote against you,
"The Constitution says that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process,"
This I agree with and understand. This part of the post is made clear to me, and I had a general idea where you were heading with this discussion.
"At what point, after having gained wealth, does the Constitution no longer apply"
At this point I was starting to get a little confused but, I was still bearing with you.
"and they're free to be looted, their wealth taken?"
And this is where you completely lost me. What do you mean exactly by their wealth taken, and free to be looted? Do you mean going into their house at night while their are sleeping and steal it? Or are you talking about the government? Without a physical entity or situation attached to this idea of looting, I am finding it hard to grasp the concept of what you are saying or proposing.
So, you are just generally talking about taxation, which is what my post above was about, right? (that was a rhetoric question, no need to answer).
NOpe, not talking about taxation at all.
I'm unsure of why you're having trouble with this... Let me get some quotes to help you out....
Michael Moore: " WEALTHY AMERICAN‘S MONEY IS NOT THEIRS ITS ’OURS‘ ’A NATIONAL RESOURCE’ WE NEED TO TAKE IT FROM THEM"
(taken from a headline, that's why it's in caps)
Mighty Mom: "The only logical explanation is that they're holding the jobs as hostages. If we roll over and let them pass the budget they want, with the ideological cuts (PP, NPR, Medicare, more tax cuts for billionaires, etc.) they will produce jobs for Americans.
But something tells me that even if we did give in on every point they still wouldn't cough up the jobs."
Seems to be advocating taking "jobs" by force.
Obama: "My attitude is that if the economy's good for folks from the bottom up, it's gonna be good for everybody. I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody."
None of these people are doing anything but saying "we intend to take by force what we think we have a right to do" even though it isn't theirs.
and, all the left side of the spectrum forum posters agree with that idea.
So, I'm just asking... I want one of them to explain their constitutional foundation for depriving people of their wealth, not for governmental purposes, but for looting to give to someone else.
"I'm unsure of why you're having trouble with this... "
Nobody's 'having trouble.' You're not getting the answer you want because you didn't (explicitly) ask for the information you want. You asked an open-ended question about broad concepts, when you really want a defense of specific statements by specific people. You've apparently already made up your mind that those statements are indefensible, so what's the point of trying to defend them to you? You'll just disagree with any point no matter how well-supported.
Guy has a mind like a steel trap. Too bad someone left it out in the rain...
Ha! Rusty trap, good one, Jeff.
I couldn't have put it better myself. Although, I'm not sure that what you said will have an effect. As you said, it seems as though they've made up their mind about what they want to hear. I wanted to gain further information on what this forum was about but, none was given. It is sad... this forum had so much potential.
Too difficult for you to answer, I see. I have no idea how on earth it could be made simpler so you can answer it. At what point, does a person have enough that no constitutional protections apply and you're free to loot them?
I did answer it, or have you forgotten my post above? I answered about taxation AND gave my opinion on what I thought about it.
You are suggesting that we should "loot" the rich? What we are trying to tell you, is that there is a broad way that you can view your question. We are trying to get a specific fix on what YOU are asking, because there are many ways that it can be answered.
The last time that I checked, everyone who resides within the United States, and is a US citizen, is protected by the constitution. The supreme court is part of the judicial branch, the people that are part of the supreme court are the justices. They are the ones who have the authority and power to enforce the constitution, (and ultimately interpret its meaning).
Once they have ruled, their decision becomes, or enforces the law of the land. It is simple as that. Taxation, is something that is decided on all parties, Legistative, Judicial, and Executive branches. As I said, tax laws are complex and are best left to the experts.
Taxation, or "looting", the rich is something that is always widely debated. The rich do not want to be taxed but, the poor do want them to be. What side of this are you on?
"The basics though, are that taxes are in place to fund government programs which the general public cannot go without"
I disagree, although that is what the basics should be. Instead they are used primarily to redistribute wealth from those that have earned it to those that have not and promote social and moral programs that will buy politicians more votes.
Are you asking about crime and punishment? I mean, if you mean, do you get to just take something from someone just because he has it and you want it? The answer to that is no, you don't. Not by force, not by fraud.
Are you asking about "Should people have to pay taxes?" The answer is yes, people have to pay taxes if they want to share in the benefits of living in the country. If they like having the ability to drive on the roads, move about from place to place without let or hinderance, enjoy goods shipped from distant places, enjoy the protection of the armed services, enjoy the general security of the nation, then yes, taxes are owed.
"Due process of law" means "due process of law." In criminal cases, it means a trial by a jury. In tax cases, it means, "Is this tax owed according to the law of the land?" If so, then you have to pay it. If not, then you don't. If you don't like it, then you can get the law changed to say that you don't have to pay any taxes, and so far, the wealthiest Americans have done a great job of deducing their tax burden closer and closer to zero (while at the same time still benefitting from living in a safe and free society with safe roads, protection, etc.).
You think you're being all clever with your question, but really, you aren't. Your question is pretty transparent.
It's a simple question, but yet, your answer is nothing but ad hominem because I dare ask, in broad daylight, daring a liberal to defend exactly what he wants government to do, and thus, he is caught between defending the illegal or the indefensible.
If you say "there is no too much" then you are not free to take from the rich to do x y or z. Except that every liberal most stridently believes that at a certain point (and they dont' agree what that point is) that wealthy people's money and wealth (not always the same thing) is up for grabs to do ANYTHING they want with it, so long as they can muster the votes.
It is also political scapegoating. See, when you vote to waste millions of people's dollars on PBS and NPR, even the most shameless liberal would cringe if it were pointed out that the poorest of the poor were being shook down for their pet ideological brainwashing network. So, instead, they hide behind the "we'll take it from the rich". The all-purpose excuse and justification for gross misfeasance with the public's money. After all, anything is better than having the rich keep their money.
No, you're setting up a question with implicit premises that are meant to be accepted as givens, but your premises aren't universally accepted. That's where the perceived 'difficulty' lies.
This premise, for example:"Except that every liberal most stridently believes that at a certain point (and they dont' agree what that point is) that wealthy people's money and wealth (not always the same thing) is up for grabs to do ANYTHING they want with it, so long as they can muster the votes."
is unsupported. It's a strawman; You deliberately mis-state the opposition's position in a way that makes it easy to refute, and then you refute it. Well done: you just slam-dunked on a net that's only five feet off the ground.
Also, an ad hominem argument is one that tries to discredit the opposing premise by saying the person supporting it is bad. I didn't say your argument was bad because you're bad. I said your question was unclear. (I also said that you weren't being as clever as you seem to think, but that is independent of the goodness or badness of your unsupported premise.)
I also answered your question: you don't get to take someone's widget just because he has one and you don't. But me taking someone's widget is not analogous to whether people have to pay taxes or not.
I also said, everyone who wants to live in a given country has to pay their taxes. If they don't like the taxes they pay, they're free to campaign for their taxes to be reduced. But if they want to continue to live in (and benefit from) their country, then they gotta pay.
Maybe you don't like the answer, but that doesn't make it a bad one. Likewise, your strawman arguments don't make anyone's answer bad. They just demonstrate that you have to resort to strawman arguments to look good in a debate. (And that it doesn't really work all that well.)
So do you want to have a productive talk about the merits and flaws of a progressive tax? Or do you want to make unsupported assertions and have nobody call you on them, set up strawmen and knock them down and have everyone cheer, and generally have your ego stroked? 'Cos mate, this is the wrong place for that. The righties won't let the lefties get away with it, and lefties won't let the righties get away with it.
If you want to have a worthwhile discussion, go take lessons from Evan G Rodgers. He'll probably agree with you that taxes = theft, but he doesn't need to resort to unsound logic and bad rhetoric to get his point across. I often disagree with him, but he knows how to argue logically.
You said: "You deliberately mis-state the opposition's position in a way that makes it easy to refute, and then you refute it. Well done: you just slam-dunked on a net that's only five feet off the ground."
In that case, prove me wrong. Demonstrate to me that liberals do not believe that wealthy people's money is free for the taking to do with as they wish, if they can muster enough votes. Every one of them here argues PRECISELY that. That rich people have too much, and that they have a right to fix (Insert myriad issues or "want" items here), with the wealthy's money. Try denying that.
They don't deny it and you cant' either. Instead, you try to hide behind "well, it's just taxes". If you proposed a flat tax on all, i'd accept. But when you single out a group of people to tax differently, you have then implicitly stated that their wealth is free to be looted. No amount of verbosity is going to alter that.
I don't see what this big deal is with liberals. The last time I checked, we were all humans, (ie- all of the same race). I feel that labeling someone as a liberal is fine. However, discrediting their arguements and insulting them because they are liberal is not okay.
You make it very clear that you are not okay with liberals. This is bringing a lot of negativity to this forum, and generally is causing any counterpoint that you have look bad. In either case, it is up to you whether or not you want to look like a fool, (because bagging on liberals in most of your posts is quite redundant. I was fine with reading it the first few times, but now it has gotten to become old hat. Maybe you could pull something else out of your hat besides your 'liberals are bad' basis?)
I am generally not interested in this forum anymore, and because of this I may not respond back unless if something that is actually useful comes up, (mostly from you wehold). I hope that you can find a different basis for your arguments and bring new life back into this forum.
"Try denying that."
I already did that, above. Your strawman doesn't stand.
Done and done, and by your own apparent standard of rhetorical excellence I just won the argument. Ta-daaa.
But let's pretend that the conversation is still going on, just for the sake of argument.
"If you proposed a flat tax on all, i'd accept. "
You mean a flat tax on all income with no write-offs? I wouldn't be against that if we could also get rid of the various regressive taxes that disproportionally hit the poor. Like Sales tax, medicare/medicaid, and all of those ones that only apply to the first $100K or so you earn, and that you don't pay at all if you make your living off of investments (as they only apply to paychecks and not capital gains).
I don't see a progressive income tax as at all unfair in a country where the other taxes are all very regressive.
There, I've refuted your strawman and also explained that the rest of the taxes (not the income tax) we pay are in fact disproportionally levied on poor and middle-income citizens and not at all on the wealthy.
That being the case, a progressive income tax is fair. Fix one in the name of fairness and you have to also fix the other, or you're not being fair at all.
When I become pregnant. Then my liberty is gone, and my womb becomes property of the state.....if the TP has their way, that is.
Should I happen to be gay,and want to marry---same applies. My liberty is ignored, and I am deprived of marrying the person of my choice. If the TP has their way, that is.
If I lose my job, and cannot pay my bills, then my property becomes property of the state, depriving me of it. Since forever.
If I committ a crime, the state can lock me up, depriving me of my life. Uhm, hello!
I am not at liberty to throw a bomb, steal a car, break into your home, I can think of a lot I can't do.
But the worst is when you butt into my private life, which has absolutely nothing to do with you. That is the biggest intrusion of them all. And THAT will happen if the TP has their way!
Mmm. I do love a snappy come back.
Shame you haven't got any.
Factual backed by delusion maybe. Nothing more.
Actually, my thoughts on the matter are far more intelligent and coherent than yours.
Funny how you're so certain... And so incredibly wrong.
Oh. Okay! What a pathetically sad joke this thread has become. But, I'm sure you'll have a witty come back, which is nothing more than blowing smoke.
Then again, nothing new.
I fail to see how she is lying. Perhaps you could provide some counter-logic and explain your reasoning as to why she is lying? But, by now I doubt you will. Your responses seem very limited, (unless they are to defend your own agenda, or to insult another hubber).
I agree with Cagsil, this thread has become a joke. What with the moderator attacking the hubbers who post, AND not willing to expand on their statements.
Rings of smoke, Cagsil. Rings.
Truthiness: a "truth" that a person claims to know intuitively "from the gut" without regard to evidence, logic, intellectual examination, or facts.
I'm sorry, but there is nothing truthful about telling someone that they're lying. It seems like a poor way to conduct a conversation. And a disregard to facts seems to the easy way out. If I disregard facts, I could easily say that the moon IS made of cheese, and argue this point until I'm blue in the face.
Although, since you posted a picture of Stephen Colbert, I am curious to know if you are actually serious...
No, I am not serious. I find weholdthesetruth's offensive manner in these forums to be reminiscent of Stephen Colbert's right-wing alter ego.
Just my way of chuckling at the absurdity of Mr. Integrity.
By the way, you're bringing a lot of meat to this thread and I am enjoying your posts.
You mean you really are at liberty to throw a bomb, steal a car, break into your home!
Do you have evidence of this happening without people being prosecuted? If you know of any thefts you should report them to your local police department immediately.
The Constitution can't analyze, people apply the Constitution - too much is subjective!
As soon as a handful of politicians decide they want it.
Nor is that point very high; if you use a motel room, smoke a cigarette, have a drink of liquor or rent a car those very high specialty taxes are levied and go straight into general funds to help support the lifestyles of those that have decided they have a right to your property.
It's all about taking all that is possible while protecting and hiding one's own pocketbook.
Don't give cover to the socialists who are scared to death of answering this. They know they stand on untenable ground in every way.... I'm just wondering if any of them have the guts to try...
Those that feel it is right and proper to steal vast sums of money or property from those that have spent a lifetime accumulating their (usually) meager wealth won't change their minds; it would mean less for them.
On the other hand, waking the ordinary average citizen to what is being done just might. What percentage of, say, an American earning $50,000 a year goes to taxes? Income, sales, real property, liquor, personal property, gasoline, cell phone, cigarette, motel, irrigation, auto registration, FICA, gun registration and on and on and on? Nearly every dollar that comes into your hand is taxed at least 4 times and often more.
I would be very surprised if the total wasn't 1/2 of their income, and they aren't of the "rich". Indeed what percentage of the GDP goes to government taxation or fees in one form or another?
Brief History of IRS:
1862—President Lincoln signed into law a revenue-
raising measure to help pay for Civil War
expenses. The measure created a Commissioner
of Internal Revenue and the nation’s first income
tax. It levied a three-percent tax on incomes between
$600 and $10,000 and a five-percent tax
on incomes of more than $10,000.
1867—Heeding public opposition to the income
tax, Congress cut the tax rate. From 1868 until
1913, 90 percent of all revenue came from taxes
on liquor, beer, wine and tobacco.
1872—Income tax repealed.
1894—The Wilson Tariff Act revived the income
tax, and an Income Tax Division within the Bureau
of Internal Revenue was created.
1895—The Supreme Court ruled the new income
tax unconstitutional on the grounds that it was a
direct tax, and not apportioned among the states
on the basis of population. The Income Tax Division
1909—President Taft recommended Congress
propose a constitutional amendment that would
government the power to tax incomes,
without apportioning the burden among the states
in line with population. Congress also levied a
one-percent tax on
net corporate incomes of
more than $5,000.
1913—As the threat of war loomed, Wyoming
became the 36th, and last, state needed to ratify
the 16th Amendment. The Amendment stated,
“Congress shall have the power to lay and collect
taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived,
without apportionment among the several states,
and without regard to any census or enumeration.”
Later, Congress adopted a one-percent tax
on net personal income of more than $3,000 with
a surtax of 6 percent on incomes of more than
$500,000. It also repealed the 1909 corporate income
tax. The first Form 1040 was introduced!
1918—The Revenue Act of 1918 raised even
greater sums for the World War I effort. It codified
all existing tax laws and imposed a progressive
income-tax rate structure of up to 77 percent.
1919—The states ratified the 18th Amendment,
barring the manufacture, sale or transport of
intoxicating beverages (“Prohibition”). Congress
passed the Volstead Act, which gave the
Commissioner of Internal Revenue the primary
responsibility for enforcement of Prohibition.
Eleven years later, the Department of Justice assumed
primary prohibition enforcement duties.
1931—The IRS Intelligence Unit used an undercover
agent to gather evidence against gangster
Al Capone. Capone was convicted of tax evasion
and sentenced to 11 years.
1933—Prohibition repealed. IRS again assumed
responsibility for alcohol taxation the following
year and for administering the National Firearms
Act. Later, tobacco tax enforcement was added.
1942—The Revenue Act of 1942, hailed by
President Roosevelt as “the greatest tax bill in
American history,” passed Congress. It increased
taxes and the number of Americans subject to the
income tax. It also created deductions for medical
and investment expenses.
1943—Congress passed the Current Tax Payment
Act, which required employers to withhold
taxes from employees’ wages and remit them
1944—Congress passed the Individual Income
Tax Act, which created the standard deductions
on Form 1040.
1952—President Truman proposed his Reorganization
Plan No. 1, which replaced the patronage
system at the IRS with a career civil service system.
It also decentralized service to taxpayers
and sought to restore public confidence in the
1953—President Eisenhower endorsed Truman’s
reorganization plan and changed the name of the
agency from the Bureau of Internal Revenue to
the Internal Revenue Service.
1954—The filing deadline for individual tax returns
changed from March 15 to April 15.
1961—The Computer Age began at IRS with the
dedication of the National Computer Center at
1965—The IRS instituted its first toll-free telephone
1972—The Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms
Division separated from the IRS to become the
independent Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and
1974—Congress passed the Employee Retirement
and Income Security Act, which gave regulatory
responsibilities for employee benefit plans to the IRS.
This is what I found about them taking the money.Where it goes is another story.
Actually I would favor a flat tax for everyone including corporations since you asked. What are you upset I replied to your first post with facts?
The Constitution? Article 1 section 7 and 8. As far as how much? My Opinion was "Flat Tax rate" 3 dollars or 3 million. Either someone pays you to post or you seem like another Republican crying "MY Money, My Money" you want the benefits of this country but you don't want to contribute. That's my opinion, so How do you like them apples?
Then again, when posting to a forum, I was not aware that an opinion was required. Although, an explanation to what you are posting is helpful in understanding what is being said. Great information by the way.
You have no point. You're not even on topic, nor responsive in any way to the question asked.
" At what point, does a person have enough that no constitutional protections apply and you're free to loot them?" Apparently anyone deemed a criminal for one will do.
I am guessing that was a rhetorical question but, I am pretty sure that they can seeing as how they wrote their response. Anymore personal attacks of this nature and I will be reporting this forum.
Also, you should adhere to your own words. I am quoting you, and breaking my promise,
"You're not even on topic, nor responsive in any way to the question asked."
You must expect that people are going to respond to this forum in their own way. If you cannot deal with that, then don't create forums.
I asked if the poster could read, simply because HOW a criminal got his rights taken was by criminal conviction. However, the answer was pure demagoguery, instead of substance.
"With each new bill, newly elected tea party lawmakers are offering Montanans a vision of the future.
"Their state would be a place where officials can ignore US laws, force FBI agents to get a sheriff's OK before arresting anyone, ban abortions, limit sex education in schools and create armed citizen militias. It's the tea party world." Matt Gouras, Associated Press, quoted in The Washington Spectator April 15, 2011."
Did you catch the BAN ABORTIONS part?
Maybe the AP reporter is lying.
Or maybe the Tea-Party is pro-choice?
Or maybe pigs will fly.
Once created, a human has the right to live. You ahve no right to kill another human, just for your convenience or emotional whim.
unless of course they are born on the wrong side of the tracks, then they can just go to hell.
it isn't possible. Marriage is between a man and woman.
If two people of the same gender want to marry, it's impossible, they're not a man and woman.
If they want some kind of ceremony, then they can make up their own.
Hi. Newbie here. I don't go into Politics much, all that talking - sheesh. Is it a question about taxtion or immigration?
Whichever it is I don't mind telling you that I don't have much of a view on this - because my wife does most of our voting.
It's called a single transferable vote I think, and it means I still get my tea.
I hope this helped.
So, in other words;
"But the worst is when you butt into my private life, which has absolutely nothing to do with you. That is the biggest intrusion of them all. And THAT will happen if the TP has their way!"
I told the truth.
You NEVER tell truth. Ever. Nor have you ever been even slightly civil.
Where as you are constantly civil. I bet you're really a diplomat.
Please find my claims to being the model of civility. Oh, wait. I didn't. You lied again.
Errrr, you called my ideas stupid nonsense....
Called me a liar, several times......
You have a strange idea of civility.
You are of the Glenn Beckian variety.
Just a friendly bit of advice - I would watch the "you lie" commentary. You have used that one about half a dozen times today. That's likely enough to get you banned.
That is entirely my point, you don't have a civil bone in your body and yet you constantly accuse others of incivility!
What does my being pregnant by a man that is not you, or me loving another woman, have anything to do with you?
You want to make it your business and tell me I must stay pregnant on your orders, and I cannot marry the woman I love.
(wow--I'm quite the bi-polar one huh? ahahaha)
Therefore, you DO want to stick your nose where it doesn't belong. Therefore, I told the truth about you.
You and your cult are dangerous to freedom.
We do not govern by religious ideology and pernicious values.
You do not get the power to appropriate the tradition of others and tell them they must change them. There is NO right to marry and never has been. The state limits who can marry, and does so because it defines what is marriage... that being a man and woman who are not related to each other.
And you have NO right to kill another human being, once you create it. It possesses the right to live once created. Nobody's doing anything to you, except prohibiting you from taking someone else's right to live.
If you want some kind of commemorative event to broadcast your emotional state to the world, then freaking make one up, but do NOT call it "marriage" because that's wrong. It isn't marriage and cannot be.
This is your ideology, is agreeable to 12% of the population, and has no business being the ruling force of a country in the 21st century.
We are not the Taliban here.
And 88% of us reject that theory/belief/religious conviction.
Oh, and fyi--I have EVERY right to decide what is and isn't created in my body, and I have EVERY right to marry just like you do. I pay taxes, vote and buy things from your repub friends.
Sorry, if you think you can treat me as second class because of who I am.
geeezus...I'm starting to think I AM gay!!
Here's another bit of civility form truth-out there:
"is the most idiotic nonsense ever dreamed up. Not even children are that stupid."
My god!! With civility like that, who needs anger management???
personally i believe the constitution was put in place to protect our civil rights and that no situation should deprive us of them. our forefathers fought through wars and our parents marched for them and that should not be taken lightly.
i also believe that if someone feels the law is not being followed properly that you should contest it. case by case, even up to the supreme court level decisions are made all of the time regarding heated, civil matters. that is the arena to resolve them.
civil rights and freedom are what set apart our country from countless others. that is not something that i would take lightly.
just my thoughts.
by ptosis2 months ago
federal income tax rates history, During the eight years of the Eisenhower presidency, from 1953 to 1961, the top marginal rate was 91 percent. (It was 92 percent the year he came into office.)What does it mean, though?...
by AnalogousMethod3 years ago
What a great country. Let me tell you a story about a man and his wife.This man worked hard for "the man" for a decade out of high school, and lost his job. His wife was working on her degree. He started...
by Tony Lawrence5 years ago
Is nobody going to call Peter Schiff on his "I pay 50% tax" crap?Recently, Peter Schiff marched into OWS and confronted demonstrators, claiming that he pays 50% of his income to taxes. Unfortunately, the...
by Don W2 months ago
I want to get people's views on this. The thread's inspired by comments I've seen from people in and outside of this forum that suggest taxes are theft. The idea goes: if the government forces people to pay taxes (under...
by My Esoteric16 months ago
In reading Federalist Paper # 36 on Taxation, I found the jewel that speaks to one of the main differences between today's Republicans and Democrats"...; and must naturally tend to make it a fixed point of policy...
by Susan Reid4 years ago
Wow. 500,000 households making more than $100K per year and 7,000 millionaires paid no income tax in 2011.Do they consider themselves "victims" do we suppose?Are they lost causes who will never...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.