They’re fine with de facto segregation. No need or will to make it de jure again.
18 Likes
The solution is obvious.
100% inheritance tax. That way, all births start out with the same advantages and disadvantages, with no advantage by race, wealth, sex or disability. Just as Chief Justice Roberts intends. “We are all equal now!”
Who could possibly oppose the idea of equality from birth?
8 Likes
To be fair, it’s the Olds that vote republican…
There are many reasons to want to kick a millennial, but voting preferences across the group isn’t one of them…
6 Likes
Jesus Christ, just apportion it among the states. Use that specific income to “offset” other general “non-apportioned” income.
Easy peasy. The States get the same or more income, and the Feds keep more to pay down the deficit/debt.
My lawyer will contact your lawyer.
The question that always runs through my mind when I watch people shoot themselves in the foot because their candidate is not perfectly in line with every single thing they believe is what is so bad about the lesser of two evils? It’s lesser, right? It’s less evil (usually so much less evil it is actually good). What is wrong with someone’s brain that they wouldn’t want to block the GREATER of two evils? Help me, o dog, in my hour of need, for they know not what the fuck they are doing.
16 Likes
How do you intend to handle all the destitute orphans that your plan would result in?
6 Likes
Everybody get bootstraps issued at birth along w/ their Social Security card, that is all.
8 Likes
Have them contact Mr. Justice Thomas and inquire about the Horatio Alger Association.
10 Likes
My suit is for misuse of a hyphen.
13 Likes
This is obviously one of those Major Questions to which the originalists on the Court will apply their Doctrine.
5 Likes
The Congress shall have 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. –emphasis added 16th Amendment to the US Constitution
The one and only time “income” appears in the Constitution without further definition. I’m sure there’s some originalist “understanding”/common law definition of income, but to this layperson, from whatever source derived to me COULD include unrealized gains. The value of that unrealized gain is still valuable and useful (as collateral, for example) so why can it NOT be considered income to the beneficiary?
This case looks like another made up excuse for this court to contribute to the destruction of the common American – back to the “originalist” idea that only white male land owners know what’s best for everybody.
ETA - WHITE male
8 Likes
I’m sure they’re at work on that right now. And then on to Plessy v. Ferguson. And then they’ll have to look at the Dred Scott thing.
Well, as that notorious original libtard George Washington stated in his Farewell Address: “…The execution of these maxims belongs to your representatives, but it
is necessary that public opinion should cooperate. To facilitate to them the performance of their duty, it is essential that you should practically bear in mind
that towards the payment of debts there must be revenue; that to have revenue there must be taxes; that no taxes can be devised which are not more or
less inconvenient and unpleasant; that the intrinsic embarrassment inseparable from the selection of the proper objects (which is always a choice of
difficulties) ought to be a decisive motive for a candid construction of the conduct of the government in making it, and for a spirit of acquiescence in the measures for obtaining revenuewhich the public exigencies may at any time dictate. …”, https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/resources/pdf/Washingtons_Farewell_Address.pdf, pp. 17-18.
12 Likes
Okay, how about “likelihood of voting”, then?
2 Likes
Who, as we may note, put down the “Whiskey Rebellion” when a group of back country distillers refused to pay their excise taxes.
8 Likes
Huh, that’s an idea. I thought the plaintiffs were talking about apportioning the tax burden rather than the distribution end.
When it comes to the 1/100th (of 1%) a quote from Ms. Leona Hemsley comes in mind:
During the trial, a former housekeeper testified that she had heard Helmsley say: “We don’t pay taxes; only the little people pay taxes”, a quote which was identified with her for the rest of her life.
7 Likes
Strict originalism for the 2nd amendment would allow everyone to have as many flintlock muskets and pistols as they liked; and that’s it.
7 Likes
That’s it in a nutshell. US corporations paid zero tax on their profits if they left the cash in an offshore subsidiary but paid the standard corporate rate if they brought the money back to the US. Trump reinstituted the same sham Bush the Lesser ran in 2004, claiming all those noble job creators would bring their foreign stacks of cash back to rebuild the economy if we cut them a sweetheart tax deal. It was a voluntary program, so the Moores, et al, could have continued to horde their tax free cash and used it world wide other than in the good old US of A.
7 Likes
Something about that “voluntary” feature… is that used in lieu of enforcement in order to avoid challenges like the current plaintiffs’ reasoning?