To this layman it looks irresponsible of the Court to take such a case, unless they now actually think of themselves as a legislative body masquerading as judges.
People that Love war Spending love taxation because that's all it feeds. So they destroyed the metallic standard and then the gold standard because both inconvenienced war spending and now they want to tax everything imaginable for their perverse and insatiable desire to perpetuate constantly increasing levels of war spending. It's a disease people are actually paid to defend and encourage i.e. economists and lawyers the latter of whom will defend anything for cash. It's remarkable to me that people are still duped by all of this pseudo liberal bosh. It's something they don't think about if their temporarily inconvenienced millionaire status becomes suddenly un-inconvenienced. Capital gains taxes are a sales tax with deductions and credits rightly so and they rightfully aren't levied until the realty or personalty is sold. Income taxes were and are solely created to fund war i.e., your purchase money for the sale of your labor as your sole means to purchase subsistence - how remarkably barbaric. Dividends and interest are the same as rent surely by the late 18th century and long before lawyers and the like knew what those are. Tariffs and excise taxes were the main source of revenue received by the US there was a massive war debt then but no income tax and as far as I know none until the civil war. All of this is in serious need of being curbed.
The income tax amendment in my view was not necessary as a constitutional matter on one level. It is not a "direct tax" to tax income. The Pollock ruling was a wrongly decided 5-4 opinion.
But, on another level, it makes sense. It made a clear statement that income taxes are acceptable. The overall point should be to avoid hairsplitting on the matter.
OTOH, some wish to do this, as shown by those who tried to find some way to consider the Affordable Care Act tax a "direct tax," which even the Founders were confused about beyond the basics.
The sensitive nature of this case underlines why Alito should not have took part. I also think there is a good chance this won't be a 5-4 sort of case. The "duty to sit" here is rather unclear. Anyway, let's now start to think about the particulars.
To this layman it looks irresponsible of the Court to take such a case, unless they now actually think of themselves as a legislative body masquerading as judges.
You should have asked tobin if he thinks unrealized loses can be applied against your tax burden. Hmmmm....
People that Love war Spending love taxation because that's all it feeds. So they destroyed the metallic standard and then the gold standard because both inconvenienced war spending and now they want to tax everything imaginable for their perverse and insatiable desire to perpetuate constantly increasing levels of war spending. It's a disease people are actually paid to defend and encourage i.e. economists and lawyers the latter of whom will defend anything for cash. It's remarkable to me that people are still duped by all of this pseudo liberal bosh. It's something they don't think about if their temporarily inconvenienced millionaire status becomes suddenly un-inconvenienced. Capital gains taxes are a sales tax with deductions and credits rightly so and they rightfully aren't levied until the realty or personalty is sold. Income taxes were and are solely created to fund war i.e., your purchase money for the sale of your labor as your sole means to purchase subsistence - how remarkably barbaric. Dividends and interest are the same as rent surely by the late 18th century and long before lawyers and the like knew what those are. Tariffs and excise taxes were the main source of revenue received by the US there was a massive war debt then but no income tax and as far as I know none until the civil war. All of this is in serious need of being curbed.
The income tax amendment in my view was not necessary as a constitutional matter on one level. It is not a "direct tax" to tax income. The Pollock ruling was a wrongly decided 5-4 opinion.
But, on another level, it makes sense. It made a clear statement that income taxes are acceptable. The overall point should be to avoid hairsplitting on the matter.
OTOH, some wish to do this, as shown by those who tried to find some way to consider the Affordable Care Act tax a "direct tax," which even the Founders were confused about beyond the basics.
The sensitive nature of this case underlines why Alito should not have took part. I also think there is a good chance this won't be a 5-4 sort of case. The "duty to sit" here is rather unclear. Anyway, let's now start to think about the particulars.