DOES OUR GOVERNMENT ADEQUATELY "SUPPORT" OUR CONSTITUTION?

Yes, to hell with it indeed . . . it's a terrible thing to be "outed" . . .

You have interpreted Article VI, and done so badly. The sentence to which you allude simply precludes judges in every state from unconstitutional rulings--it in no way binds them to pass upon the constitutionality of any statute, nor does it make any provision for the rendering of judgments on the constitutionality of any statute, by any judge, the Supreme Court not excepted. The entire consideration of such an exercise was not provided for until Justice Marshall rendered his opinion in Marbury v. Madison. This is another example of the extent to which you habitually replace a knowledge of the constitution, its history and the history of the Supreme Court and its case law with your opinions, which mitigates much in favor of your screwy arguments, but bears no relationship to the truth. You continunally beat a drum about transferring money, and taxing forms of income at different rates, but these issues are in law non-issues. The sixteenth amendment, ratified February 3, 1913, reads, in full: "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." It is entirely mute on the subject of sources of income, or rates of taxation, other than to list certain conditions which may not be applied to laying of said taxes. Your hammering on the subject of transferring money is your personal stalking horse in this pseudo-constitutional screed, but it has no meaning in law.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

... You continunally beat a drum about transferring money, and taxing forms of income at different rates, but these issues are in law non-issues. The sixteenth amendment, ratified February 3, 1913, reads, in full: "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." It is entirely mute on the subject of sources of income, or rates of taxation, other than to list certain conditions which may not be applied to laying of said taxes. Your hammering on the subject of transferring money is your personal stalking horse in this pseudo-constitutional screed, but it has no meaning in law.

You are wrong again! Neither your attacks on the argument or your attacks on the arguer are valid. I'll confine my response to your attacks on the arguement.

You appear to be claiming that the 16th Amendment exists independently of anything else in the federal Constitution. In other words, I infer from your argument that nothing else in the federal Constitution shall influence the interpretation of the 16th Amendment.

I disagree. Where is it written in the federal Constitution that such is true for any amendmendment?

"Amendment XIII (1865)
Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation."

Maybe you think someone being compelled by Congress and the President to fork over some of one's earnings to someone else is not involuntary servitude -- is not theft of one's property by the government to benefit someone else. But of course it is theft and involuntary servitude.

Main Entry: ser·vi·tude
Pronunciation: 's&r-v&-"tüd, -"tyüd
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from Latin servitudo slavery, from servus slave
Date: 15th century
1 : a condition in which one lacks liberty especially to determine one's course of action or way of life
2 : a right by which something (as a piece of land) owned by one person is subject to a specified use or enjoyment by another.

Main Entry: in·vol·un·tary
Pronunciation: (")in-'vä-l&n-"ter-E
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English involuntari, from Late Latin involuntarius, from Latin in- + voluntarius voluntary
Date: 15th century
1 : done contrary to or without choice
2 : COMPULSORY
3 : not subject to control of the will : REFLEX
- in·vol·un·tari·ly /-"vä-l&n-'ter-&-lE/ adverb
- in·vol·un·tari·ness /-'vä-l&n-"ter-E-n&s/ noun

Main Entry: theft
Pronunciation: 'theft
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English thiefthe, from Old English thIefth; akin to Old English thEof thief
Date: before 12th century
1 a : the act of stealing; specifically : the felonious taking and removing of personal property with intent to deprive the rightful owner of it b : an unlawful taking (as by embezzlement or burglary) of property
2 obsolete : something stolen
3 : a stolen base in baseball.

"Amendment XIV (1868)
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. ..."

I suspect you think this only applies to state governments. But what about:

"Amendment V (1791)
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation[b/]."

Main Entry: due process
Function: noun
Date: 1791
1 : a course of formal proceedings (as legal proceedings) carried out regularly and in accordance with established rules and principles -- called also procedural due process
2 : a judicial requirement that enacted laws may not contain provisions that result in the unfair, arbitrary, or unreasonable treatment of an individual -- called also substantive due process.

Main Entry: 2just
Pronunciation: 'j&st
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French & Latin; Middle French juste, from Latin justus, from jus right, law; akin to Sanskrit yos welfare
Date: 14th century
1 a : having a basis in or conforming to fact or reason : REASONABLE <a just but not a generous decision> b archaic : faithful to an original c : conforming to a standard of correctness : PROPER <just proportions>
2 a (1) : acting or being in conformity with what is morally upright or good : RIGHTEOUS <a just war> (2) : being what is merited : DESERVED <a just punishment> b : legally correct : LAWFUL <just title to an estate>
synonym see FAIR, UPRIGHT
- just·ly adverb
- just·ness /'j&s(t)-n&s/ noun.

Main Entry: com·pen·sa·tion
Pronunciation: "käm-p&n-'sA-sh&n, -"pen-
Function: noun
Date: 14th century
1 a : the act of compensating : the state of being compensated b : correction of an organic defect or loss by hypertrophy or by increased functioning of another organ or unimpaired parts of the same organ c : a psychological mechanism by which feelings of inferiority, frustration, or failure in one field are counterbalanced by achievement in another
2 a (1) : something that constitutes an equivalent or recompense <age has its compensations> (2) : payment to unemployed or injured workers or their dependents b : PAYMENT, REMUNERATION
- com·pen·sa·tion·al /-shn&l, -sh&-n&l/ adjective

0 Replies

God, your nonsense is breath-taking. Note the phrase, without due process of law--the sixteenth amendment constitutes due process of law. That allegation of involuntary servitude is high-larious--no one forces you to work for an employer who withholds taxes, nor to work for anyone at all. No one forces you to remit your taxes. If you fail to do so, i assure you that the IRS will eventually come after you, if they know of it and consider you sufficiently large fish to fry, and nail you with every vestige of due process at their disposal. That argument in which you try to equate your income as private property taken from you without just compensation is also a non-issue in law. No court would consider it for a moment, and rightly so. Were someone so dull-witted as to argue the point, then a case could be made that the government compensates every tax payer by the services it provides. That not all tax payers are happy with the return they get on their money is not a valid, legal point of contention, since a democracy does not require the unanimous consent of every citizen for every measure in all of its ramifications. You're playing word games, which have not force in any argument intending to establish matters of fact and of law, and you do it very badly.

0 Replies

Setanta

You are attempting to reason with Ican.

You'd do better trying to teach quantum mechanics to a ferret.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

...Note the phrase, without due process of law--the sixteenth amendment constitutes due process of law.

"Amendment XVI (1913)
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 of enumeration."

I don't find anything in the 16th Amendment asserting that the government can charge discriminatory tax rates among dollars of income/revenue based on the circumstances under which the income/revenue is obtained. When the government does so, it deprives the taxpayer of some of the due process to which the tax payer has a right

I don't find anything in the 16th Amendment asserting that the government can when taxing income/revenue ignore those parts of the 5th Amendment it doesn't like. When the government does so, it deprives the taxpayer of some of the due process to which the tax payer has a right

To wit -- "Amendment V (1791)
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

I don't find anything in the 16th Amendment asserting that the government can when taxing income/revenue ignore that part of the 13th Amendment it doesn't like. When the government does so, it deprives the taxpayer of some of the due process to which the tax payer has a right.

To wit -- "Amendment XIII (1865)
Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation."

Main Entry: 1mon·ey
Pronunciation: 'm&-nE
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural moneys or mon·ies /'m&-nEz/
Usage: often attributive
Etymology: Middle English moneye, from Middle French moneie, from Latin moneta mint, money -- more at MINT
Date: 14th century
1 : something generally accepted as a medium of exchange, a measure of value, or a means of payment: as a : officially coined or stamped metal currency b : MONEY OF ACCOUNT c : PAPER MONEY
2 a : wealth reckoned in terms of money b : an amount of money c plural : sums of money : FUNDS
3 : a form or denomination of coin or paper money
4 a : the first, second, and third place winners (as in a horse or dog race) -- usually used in the phrases in the money or out of the money b : prize money <his horse took third money>
5 a : persons or interests possessing or controlling great wealth b : a position of wealth <born into money>
- for one's money : according to one's preference or opinion
- on the money : exactly right or accurate
[money table]

Main Entry: prop·er·ty
Pronunciation: 'prä-p&r-tE
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -ties
Etymology: Middle English proprete, from Middle French propreté, from Latin proprietat-, proprietas, from proprius own
Date: 14th century
1 a : a quality or trait belonging and especially peculiar to an individual or thing b : an effect that an object has on another object or on the senses c : VIRTUE 3 d : an attribute common to all members of a class
2 a : something owned or possessed; specifically : a piece of real estate b : the exclusive right to possess, enjoy, and dispose of a thing : OWNERSHIP c : something to which a person or business has a legal title d : one (as a performer) under contract whose work is especially valuable
3 : an article or object used in a play or motion picture except painted scenery and costumes
synonym see QUALITY
- prop·er·ty·less /-l&s/ adjective
- prop·er·ty·less·ness /-n&s/ noun

Sorry about that chief. Money is definitely a form of property.

Setanta wrote:
...No one forces you to remit your taxes. If you fail to do so, i assure you that the IRS will eventually come after you, if they know of it and consider you sufficiently large fish to fry, and nail you with every vestige of due process at their disposal.

People who don't pay their taxes are often convicted and put in jail. So much for your silly idea that "no one forces you."

Setanta wrote:
... That argument in which you try to equate your income as private property taken from you without just compensation is also a non-issue in law.
.

Did Rehnquist tell you that?

Those who have a greater percentage of their income taken in taxes than I do (that's almost everyone ) have a right to just compensation for that extra taking. That is, they must get something extra in return besides avoidance of jail. Perhaps extra services would meet the requirement of the 5th Amendment.

0 Replies

ican711nm wrote:

joefromchicago wrote:

So would you agree that the courts should interpret the constitution according to the "original intent" of the framers?

Yes!

OK, just so I get this straight (there are different versions of "intentionalism" out there -- I want to figure out which one you espouse):

(1) Would you agree that any constitutional interpretation must accord with the original intent of the drafters -- not just the intent of those members of the constitutional convention, but also the intents of the drafters of the various lawfully passed amendments?

(2) Would you agree that an interpretation that deviates from the original intentions of the drafters is inferior to an interpretation that more closely coincides with that original intent?

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

Note the phrase, without due process of law--the sixteenth amendment constitutes due process of law.

By itself, the 16th Amendment does not constitute due process.

ican711nm wrote:

I don't find anything in the 16th Amendment asserting that the government can when taxing income/revenue ignore that part of the 13th Amendment it doesn't like. When the government does so, it deprives the taxpayer of some of the due process to which the tax payer has a right.

I'm confused. Maybe you've dealt with this before (as I mentioned above, I haven't followed this thread very closely), but how does the 13th Amendment fit in with an argument about taxes?

ican711nm wrote:

Money is definitely a form of property.

That is unquestionably correct.

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

You'd do better trying to teach quantum mechanics to a ferret.

My ferret is vastly more intelligent than Ican.

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

OK, just so I get this straight (there are different versions of "intentionalism" out there -- I want to figure out which one you espouse):

(1) Would you agree that any constitutional interpretation must accord with the original intent of the drafters -- not just the intent of those members of the constitutional convention, but also the intents of the drafters of the various lawfully passed amendments?

(2) Would you agree that an interpretation that deviates from the original intentions of the drafters is inferior to an interpretation that more closely coincides with that original intent?

Joe, neither of these choices reflects what I thought you meant by the phrase: "original intent of the framers." I assume you already know that which I write here. I write it nonetheless so that you will be clear what I mean by this phrase of yours.

I hold in my hand a booklet containing the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States of America as lawfully amended 27 times (i.e., the federal Constitution).

The "framers" include the signers of the Declaration, adopted by the 2nd Continental Congress, July 4, 1776. The first part of the 2nd paragraph of the Declaration reflects the general intent of these participating "framers" of the federal Constitution:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness."

The "framers" of the federal Constitution also include all those who contributed to and approved the current content of the federal Constitution. For example, in convention on Monday, September 27, 1787, representatives of eleven states, (Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampsire, New Jersey, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Virginia, plus Hamilton from New York) submitted the federal Constitution in its then current form to te states for Adoption. This federal Constitution was adopted by all 13 states by March 4, 1789. Its first 11 amendments were submitted by Congress to the states on Wednesday, March 4, 1789, and 10 were adopted by the states on December 15, 1791. The 11th wasn't adopted until May 7, 1992.

The "framers" of the federal Constitution also include those who submitted and adopted the other 16 amendments.

I think the practical way to interpret the words of both documents is to apply the definitions of those words in effect at the time the words were adopted. That is exactly what I have tried to do. I have relied heavily on the Federalist Papers for the meanings of the words used in the 1789 federal Constitution. For the rest, I confess, I have relied on the relevant Encyclopedia Britannica commentary.

0 Replies

So, by extension, Ican is saying that we must take into consideration "the intent" of the framers and drafters of those two documents -- even if a part of their "intent" was to invoke a "Creator" "endowing" us with "inalienable rights."

Wow, that sure is one hell of a wide back door!

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

...how does the 13th Amendment fit in with an argument about taxes?

"Amendment XIII (1865)
Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."

My lawsuit is about two arguments:
1. unconstitutional government transfers of money from some groups to other groups;
2. unconstitutional discriminatory unequal tax rates.

The unconstitutional government transfers of money are financed by the discriminatory unequal tax rates.

I claim these unconstitutional government transfers of money compel some groups into involuntary servitude of other groups. The money transferred is money lawfully earned (until and unless proven otherwise) by the honorable labor (until and unless proven otherwise) of investors, owners, and employees. These earnings are being taken against the will of some of these earners; such earners are thereby bound in involuntary servitude. That's unconstitutional!

0 Replies

I'm going to edit the copy of the lawsuit on page 4.

Most of the edits are made to provide more clarity or eliminate some typos. But the part on <ORIGINAL QUOTATION FROM OCALA REGARDING A PERSON'S PRIVILEGES, AND IMMUNITIES, .... 15. ...> will be rewritten.

0 Replies

From human instincts to human rights (copied from the forum serving as companion to this one.)

AXIOM
An individual human's interest in survival and an individual human's interest in altruism (when such exists) is an intrinsic/inherent trait of that individual.

HYPOTHESIS
These human intrinsic/inherent traits plus the intrinsic/inherent ability of humans to think, lead many humans inexorably to the conclusion they can satisfy their intrinsic/inherent traits to survive and to be altruistic by seeking acknowledgment by all honorable humans that it is in our enligtened mutual self-interests to live by the following moral imperative:

Treat others the way you want to be treated ; don't treat others the way you don't want to be treated; love others as you love yourself; root for everyone to live long, healthy, honorably, and prosper.

IMPLICATION
This moral imperative implies that we must acknowledge every one's intrinsic and inherent right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, except for that right of a person who forfeits that right by refusing to acknowledge that same right of another.

SECURITY
None of these rights are gained or lost by government securing or not securing them. This implication is valid whether one lives in a community with or without a government. What may be gained or lost by government securing or failing to secure these rights is the opportunity to enjoy these rights.

0 Replies

ican711nm wrote:

Joe, neither of these choices reflects what I thought you meant by the phrase: "original intent of the framers." I assume you already know that which I write here. I write it nonetheless so that you will be clear what I mean by this phrase of yours.

Well, I'm not being deliberately obtuse here, ican, but I'm trying to understand your position in light of the considerable debate that has gone on in the realm of jurisprudence regarding the notion of "original intent."

ican711nm wrote:

The "framers" include the signers of the Declaration, adopted by the 2nd Continental Congress, July 4, 1776. The first part of the 2nd paragraph of the Declaration reflects the general intent of these participating "framers" of the federal Constitution:

This, for instance, is a side of "original intent" that I've never seen before. I can understand how the constitution can be interpreted according to the intent of the constitution's framers, and I can understand how the Declaration of Indepence can be interpreted according to the intent of declaration's framers, but I don't quite understand how the constitution can be interpreted according to the intent of the declaration's framers. They weren't the same people, after all (Jefferson, e.g., didn't participate in the constitutional convention at all). So are you saying that the declaration, somehow, evinces a kind of "over-arching" intent that applies to the entire constitution, amendments and all? I confess that I'm totally confused by this.

ican711nm wrote:

The "framers" of the federal Constitution also include those who submitted and adopted the other 16 amendments.

OK, I think I'm with you on that. But just so I can make sure: if, for example, we wanted to interpret the term "taxes," as found in the 16th amendment, we would want to determine what the drafters of the 16th amendment meant when they used the word "taxes," right?

ican711nm wrote:

I think the practical way to interpret the words of both documents is to apply the definitions of those words in effect at the time the words were adopted. That is exactly what I have tried to do. I have relied heavily on the Federalist Papers for the meanings of the words used in the 1789 federal Constitution. For the rest, I confess, I have relied on the relevant Encyclopedia Britannica commentary.

That's fine. The Federalist Papers have frequently been used as interpretive aids to the original constitution. Here, I think you're pretty close to the traditional view of "original intent," as practiced by Antonin Scalia et al.

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

I'm trying to understand your position in light of the considerable debate that has gone on in the realm of jurisprudence regarding the notion of "original intent."

I understand your intent and respect it.

joefromchicago wrote:

I don't quite understand how the constitution can be interpreted according to the intent of the declaration's framers. They weren't the same people, after all (Jefferson, e.g., didn't participate in the constitutional convention at all). So are you saying that the declaration, somehow, evinces a kind of "over-arching" intent that applies to the entire constitution, amendments and all? I confess that I'm totally confused by this.

Sorry, I didn't make that clear.

"over-arching" intent ? Yes! I'll explain.

It is the Declaration that states explicily why governments ought to be created:

"to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed".

Then it goes on to say something I think is especially relevant to the constitutional method of amending the powers delegated to our government:

"whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness."

In brief, either our government's powers get amended lawfully (e.g., "altered") or our government gets replaced (e.g., "abolish it") with a different one that does get its powers amended lawfully.

joefromchicago wrote:

But just so I can make sure: if, for example, we wanted to interpret the term "taxes," as found in the 16th amendment, we would want to determine what the drafters of the 16th amendment meant when they used the word "taxes," right?

Almost!

what the drafters and the adopters of the 16th amendment meant when they used the word "taxes," right?

Right!

0 Replies

ican711nm wrote:

what the drafters and the adopters of the 16th amendment meant when they used the word "taxes," right?

Right!

Who are the "adopters"? The members of congress who voted on the amendment? The members of the various state legislatures who voted to adopt it? All of them?

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

Who are the "adopters"? The members of congress who voted on the amendment? The members of the various state legislatures who voted to adopt it? All of them?

Yes, all of them! More accurately, the consensus of all of them.

0 Replies

Joe, when you're ready, let's first discuss:

1. Whether or not the government periodically taking money from some and giving it to others, constitutes placing the some in involuntary servitude of the others .

2. Whether or not the government periodically taking a greater share of some of the dollars of income/revenue of some than the maximum government periodically takes from the dollars of others, constitutes a taking of private property for public use without just compensation.

0 Replies

Ican,
It can be argued ( and often is) that all payment of taxes are voluntary. In a free country you can decide:

1. To not earn money at all, with consequent lowering of your standard of living.

2. Leave the country for one which does not collect income taxes.
This option is limited to Albania and a few others.

3. Live on the bare minimum, Squat a tent on public property, place your possesions under a bridge, move to the Everglades or some place else where you need no heat to survive. You probably wouldn't survive long there anyways.

4. Quit working, collect welfare (a cost effective strategy for the person involved) You have to be nice to the nice lady who comes to check up and you have to behave in a way that the government finds acceptable.

5. Don't pay your bills and go to jail. This has some effect on your personal mobility, perhaps a drawback to some.

The choices are ours, ergo paying taxes is voluntary. Rolling Eyes

Frankly, I don't mind buying some services from the government. As you may expect if there were competing governments Adam Smith would take an invisible hand thus ensureing at least a minimum of competence in government.

IMO the problem is not TAXES per se, but the inefficient manner in which they are collected and used. The way we have done it so far has contributed in a major way to the welfare mess, the relatively low return on capital invested, and to the foreign adventures that our elected government has embarked us upon.

The welfare mess includes also the "Peter Principle" which since it has no correcting factor finds it's fullest expression in our governmental bureaucracies, thus lowering the living standards of people all over the world.

The "Peter Principal" alludes to the tendency of a person in government service (and government sponsored activities) to rise into a position for which he is incompetent. Cousin Adam is not allowed to take a hand in these activities.

So as a rule the less say Adam Smith has in human activities the worse the job that the activity will consider "good enough for government work".

Our problem, it seems to me, is to get Adam a bit more involved in our daily activities. 2 Cents

0 Replies

akaMechsmith wrote:

Ican,
It can be argued ( and often is) that all payment of taxes are voluntary.

Yeah! Voluntary .... hmmmmm.

Robber: Give me $20 or I'll strip you naked.
Victim: Hmmmm.
Robber: I mean it. Give me $20 or I'll strip you naked.
Victim: Hmmmmmm.
Robber: Damnittohell man. I mean it. Give me $20 or I'll strip you naked.
Victim: I'm thinking it over! It is after all a voluntary choice I have whether to give you the $20 or not.
Robber: RRRiiiiippp Shocked

akaMechsmith wrote:

Frankly, I don't mind buying some services from the government.

I don't mind either. I especially like the ones that secure my rights and reduce the chance of collisions.

But I do mind the government taking my money and giving it to others without my permission. I can help people who need my help far more effectively than can the government's army of "Peter Principled" bureaucrats.

And I do mind the government taking a greater percentage of Bill Gate's dollars than the percentage it takes of my dollars. My posterity will surely suffer for it much as the posterity of current Californians are suffering from equivalent prior and current tax practices. Also, taking more from each of Gates dollars leaves him with less to invest in: his company (more and better job opportunities); and/or in other people's companies (more and better job opportunities); and/or buy more stuff (more and better job opportunities); and/or less to earn such that his total tax payment is less than it would otherwise be with a uniform tax rate, and such that the government ends up with less total revenue.

Personally, I benefited from the wealthy. For example they chartered my Learjet. I couldn't afford a Learjet on my own. My mechanics benefited, my other pilots benefited, our flight school instructors benefited, and even some employees of the FAA benefited. Oh, I almost forgot. The employees of William Powell Lear and William Powell Lear himself also benefited. I don't feel any guilt about that. :wink:

The way I satisfy my flying habit currently is by getting others (e.g., students) to pay for it. I certainly can't. I don't feel any guilt about that either. Laughing

akaMechsmith wrote:

Our problem, it seems to me, is to get Adam a bit more involved in our daily activities.

Clearly the solution to that is to get government less involved in our daily activities. Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

DOES OUR GOVERNMENT ADEQUATELY "SUPPORT" OUR CONSTITUTION?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know