20 Mar 09
Some congressmen say the bill to tax the AIG bonuses is unconstitutional.
Is this a way for government to expand it's power of taxation beyond constitutional limits?
If the senate passes it, would the supreme court rule against it or uphold it?
What are your thoughts?
20 Mar 09
Originally posted by Metal BrainStuff AIG... and what section of the Constitution are you suggesting this is an issue with respect to? The Constitution says that the government has the right to collect taxes to maintain the welfare of its citizens.
Some congressmen say the bill to tax the AIG bonuses is unconstitutional.
Is this a way for government to expand it's power of taxation beyond constitutional limits?
If the senate passes it, would the supreme court rule against it or uphold it?
What are your thoughts?
20 Mar 09
Originally posted by Metal BrainI'm not sure about the legality of the tax proposal on AIG bonus'. I am very sure however that the exec's that take these bonus's despite having driven this company into the ground should be boiled in oil!ðŸ˜
Some congressmen say the bill to tax the AIG bonuses is unconstitutional.
Is this a way for government to expand it's power of taxation beyond constitutional limits?
If the senate passes it, would the supreme court rule against it or uphold it?
What are your thoughts?
20 Mar 09
I am worried the establishment might be taking advantage of public outrage about the bonuses. Chris Dodd took out of the bill what would have stopped the bonuses. He says Geithner urged him to do it. Obama defended Geithner and said it was his responsibility and (Eisenhower quote he used during his campaign) "the buck stops here".
If Geithner pressured Dodd to do it then Obama is responsible. Now it looks like they will throw Dodd under the bus since they need a scape goat now. It will be interesting to see how all of this unfolds.
Jay Leno asked Obama about the assertion that the tax was unconstitutional. He avoided the question by going into the whole morality issue of the bonuses and Leno didn't notice and/or care.
He dodged the question and that makes me suspicious something is up. Nothing in politics happens by accident.
20 Mar 09
Originally posted by KazetNagorraYep. Particularly if the tax is 90%
A law to tax a single company is rather silly and cumbersome if you ask me. They should simply regulate all corporate bonuses; CEOs and the like have no personal responsibility and do not deserve the income they currently get.
Quite a heavy tax if government does it more than in this particular case. Ultimately the supreme court decides these matters. Once they do it is set in stone.
20 Mar 09
Originally posted by Metal BrainWith The Candyman's current policy goals, a 90% tax is inevitable. Pretty soon we will all be slaves to the state.
Yep. Particularly if the tax is 90%
Quite a heavy tax if government does it more than in this particular case. Ultimately the supreme court decides these matters. Once they do it is set in stone.
20 Mar 09
Originally posted by bill718Will you say the same about The Candyman when his bailouts and stimulus plans run the american tax payer into the ground?
I'm not sure about the legality of the tax proposal on AIG bonus'. I am very sure however that the exec's that take these bonus's despite having driven this company into the ground should be boiled in oil!ðŸ˜
24 Mar 09
Originally posted by Metal BrainThe corporate tax rate was 90% under Eisenhower, when paying off the WW2 debt -- and the US's economic growth was at its peak while the corporate tax rate was 90%.
Yep. Particularly if the tax is 90%
Quite a heavy tax if government does it more than in this particular case. Ultimately the supreme court decides these matters. Once they do it is set in stone.
25 Mar 09
1 edit
Originally posted by Metal BrainTaxation isn't an issue for the courts. The Constitution grants the govt the right to collect tax for the general welfare of society.
Did it ever go to the supreme court?
The courts obviously didn't get involved because the corporate tax rate remained at 90% until JFK reduced it to 70%. JFK had intended to remove the corporate loopholes in the tax code, with the idea that a corporate tax rate of 70% without loopholes would generate more revenue for the govt than one of 90% with those loopholes still in place. Unfortunately, JFK never lived to remove those loopholes.
Reagan came along and reduced the corporate tax rate from 70% to 28%, whilst increasing military spending by 92%. Combining these two statistics, 72% is 2.4 times as much as 30%, so arms-manufacturing corporations gained 1.92 times 2.4, which is 4.608, times as much income from government contracts. That's more than four times as much money, even counting for inflation.
Reagan also hijacked Carter's good work on alternative energy, which has had the effect of getting the US into oil-related wars in the Middle-East, thus serving the interests of the military-industrial complex.
25 Mar 09
Originally posted by karnachzTaxation is an issue for the courts. The power to tax is the power to destroy. John Marshall said it himself when they voided a tax of the bank.
Taxation isn't an issue for the courts. The Constitution grants the govt the right to collect tax for the general welfare of society.
The courts obviously didn't get involved because the corporate tax rate remained at 90% until JFK reduced it to 70%. JFK had intended to remove the corporate loopholes in the tax code, with the idea that a corporate tax r ...[text shortened]... ated wars in the Middle-East, thus serving the interests of the military-industrial complex.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCulloch_v._Maryland
I tried to verify the 90% corporate tax but only found it on websites I've never heard of. Can you send me a reliable source of info?
Reagan raised taxes in his second term. I'm not defending Reagan per se, just stating a fact.
Carter was harboring a terrorist named the Shah of Iran. I would not praise him if I were you. He also loaned money to Daniel Ortega only for Reagan to wage a covert war against him later. Ortega must have defaulted on the loan. That is how civil wars sometimes start.
25 Mar 09
Originally posted by Metal BrainMcCullough voided a STATE tax on a Federally chartered bank. The issue was federalism, not the amount of the tax. I know of no case since the demise of substantive due process in the 30's where the Supreme Court asserts the power to decide that any level of taxation is unconstitutional.
Taxation is an issue for the courts. The power to tax is the power to destroy. John Marshall said it himself when they voided a tax of the bank.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCulloch_v._Maryland
I tried to verify the 90% corporate tax but only found it on websites I've never heard of. Can you send me a reliable source of info?
Reagan raised ta ...[text shortened]... nst him later. Ortega must have defaulted on the loan. That is how civil wars sometimes start.
There has never been a 90% or 70% tax on anything. Tax rates are marginal; the highest rates only apply to income over a certain (very high ) level.