Firstly, if you have 80% of the money, it's reasonable to expect you to pay 80% of the taxes.
If you have 40% of the income, it's reasonable to expect you to pay 40% of the income tax (and when you consider even minimal standard deductions to pay over 40%).
BUT stop for a cotten picken minute saying the poor pay no taxes.
The average poor person pays the going rate for sales tax, pays 7.5% for social security (15% if self employed), and with gas tax, cigarette tax, car license tax the typical state portion of a poor person's income is roughly 11%.
The average wealthy person pays roughly.3% of their income in social security and state taxes. It's a little more fair in some states like South Carolina. And that's only for wealthy people who have a salary/wages. Those who live off investment income pay as little as 13% while the poor person next door is losing close to 30% of their income to state,city, and local taxes.
PLUS- when you break the poor down- you get two groups.
1) Anyone without children- pays taxes. Even making only $12,000 a year they pay $600 in federal income taxes.
2) It's the poor people with children that skew the system. They pay no tax and even receive tax credits of up to a couple grand. And who's going to remove the standard exemption for children?
Heck- just recently (2014) 7,000 people who made a million dollars paid NO FEDERAL INCOME TAX. That's equivalent to 350,000 poor people.
So stop harping on how the poor pay no federal income tax unless you are going to mention that the wealthy basically pay no state and local taxes. (under 1% of their income).
Wealthy is top 1.67% in the context of this article. Poor is the bottom 20% in the context of this article.
Everyone gets a standard deduction of roughly $6,200 and 1 exemption of $3,950. If a person makes under $10,150 then that means they pay no federal income tax. The standard deduction only reduces the tax burden of the poor by 10% (lowest marginal tax rate) $600). The SAME standard deduction lowers federal taxes of everyone in the top tax bracket by roughly $2400 (39.6%).
Except numerous justices have been nominated in the last year of a president's term and also dozens of justices justice's were given a vote (that included YES votes by 20+ democrats ) within 90 days and that's even as recently as Roberts and Scalia,.
Basically, by saying they will vote no to any candidate- the republicans have tossed out the constitution. Don't they see that the result of this could be entire decades when every justice and every cabinet post is filibustered and never filled.
Article II, section 2 is meant to be a check on abuse by the president- not a method of abuse by the Senate.
---
In the larger picture- I think it would be grand if the republicans did this.
The democrats benefit much more from increased voter turnout. And having both the supreme court AND the presidency at stake combined with 8 months of the republicans blocking every candidate regardless of how moderate they were would result in an incredible democratic turnout. The republicans might even lose a lot of seats in the house and some in the senate.
I agree and there's not an easy way to address it short of the republicans realizing what is at risk and returning to the tradition of peaceful and civil transitions of power.
A constitutional convention would not be run by people of the quality of Washington, Jefferson, Franklin- heck, even Hamilton. It would likely be a runaway convention that destroyed the country.
The law (even the constitution) only goes so far. After that it depends on good and reasonable people.
I'm not sure why the republicans got so spun up. If anything the democrats are more conservative than they were in the 60s, 70s, and 80s.
I'd say religion but religious people didn't used to be so extreme so it has to be something cultural and bigger than religion going on.
I see it in the people celebrating scalia's death on the liberal side. Heck,- couldn't they have waited 24 hours to post nasty crap about Scalia?
Civility is part of the foundation of the u.s.a.'s success.
Our entire nation runs on precedents as much as legal systems.
If you start ignoring the precedents of senatorial behavior set for the past 100 years with regard to judicial and cabinet appointments, you are literally risking the destruction of the united states.
And once one party starts it, the other is eventually going to have to reply in kind.
If the republicans filibuster and refuse to approve a supreme court justice until the election then voter turnout is going to be huge.
This is an issue that would electrify the voters.
It's my impression that democrats benefit a lot more from voter turnout than republicans so this would be a bad move by republicans.
So the likely way this will play out is that Obama will nominate a safe, moderate judge with mild liberal leanings and the republicans will approve the nominee.
If the republicans turn down a reasonable nomination for judge, it's likely to cost them the election (and maybe even some house and senate seats).
Of course then the question is-- what if obama nominates a left wing judge? Not sure who comes off worse in that case.
Anyway, many judges (including scalia and roberts) were nominated and voted for in less than 90 days (and with a lot of yes votes from democrats).
If the republicans block confirmation of a reasonable nominee- I think it's a yoooge mistake.
(so they'll probably try to paint any nominee much more left than the nominee really is). Obama has been fairly cagey so I think he'll make the right move here and pick a very qualified, mildly liberal judge, with a ton of experience.
Do you think the U.S. would be where it is today if that were true?
Being "fair" was a big U.S. virtue thru Clinton. It started getting lost during the Bush years. I think because the religious group associated with the republican party felt things were too important to be fair. Ted Cruz father is the first christian I've EVER heard of in my entire life who advocating lying to non-believers.
It all fell apart when Obama got elected and the republican party decided to vote no to everything. I'm not what the basis for that decision was. Was it religious? Was it racist? Was it purely political? But it was unprecedented for the opposition party not to negotiate in good faith, hold a vote, and then move on relatively efficiently to the next issue instead of voting against bills 30+ times, filibustering bills two or three times before they voted yes for the bill, and filibustering a large number of the presidents nominees.
and the soviet union and china and viet nam and cuba (1950s) and... well a rational person would get the idea by now.
High GINI, high unemployment == lots of misery and dead people.
Not just the wealthy either (and some times they escape).
All those wealthy people in Monico will be plundered at some point too. They have a ton of cash and no military to protect it. It's just a matter of time.
Too much ballast out at the tip of the boat-- time to rebalance with inheritance, wealth taxes, and limits on how much executive salaries can be deducted as a business expense.
Dude, they've thrown capitalism away over and over throughout history because it always ends with 99.999% of the people starving and.001% of the people having all the power and wealth.
At some point the 99.999% lose hope and go ape-shit.
Some of the wealthy see this and try to keep things "fair" enough to prevent the breakdown but most of the wealthy sincerely thing they are better and deserve to eat $3,000 meals while people starve to death.
Capitalism doesn't even NEED to be abused to spin out of control. That's it's natural state. Eventually all the money ends up on the tip of the boat and it sinks again. Once all the money is on the investment side of the house, the 99% lack enough money to keep the economy going with purchases. Investment NEEDS consumers. Yin to Yang.
* Disease free (at least at first and likely for a few decades) * Endless capacity (For both genders.. tho there is the Sybian for women now) * Totally objectifiable * Easy to change appearance to keep it fresh. * Seniors in Japan have bonded emotional with much less sophisticated robots.
The question is how close to AI is the AI. Because if it is too close, it's slavery again. It needs to be a machine that does a good simulation but lacks consciousness.
UNLESS you are a rich or powerful republican (perhaps a senator or representative).
Then any kind of sex is okay. Gay sex, extra marital sex, sodomy, sex with multiple partners and drugs at the same time-- it's all good. The rules only the Hoi polloi.
That's one reason i stopped voting republican. They were such massive hypocrites about sex.
Yes, despite being wealthy, powerful, and having the best health care in the world, wealthy rich powerful u.s. citizens die all the time between 50 and 80.
However, people with good jobs at large corporations also have good health care. And at medium size companies.
Not so much for small companies and pre-ACA, only nearly worthless catastrophic plans for individuals or self employed unless they were wealthy.
Despite this, a little under 2% of americans do make it to 90 and many of them are not wealthy. They just won the lottery in some way ( good genes mostly).
Both parties behaved better and actually negotiated prior to 2008. As I said, I used to vote republican. It wasn't all their voting pattern. I'm a fiscal conservative but a social liberal so we parted ways there too.
Republicans filibustering and voting no for 9 months (close to 10) might be the reason democrats would start behaving like republicans.
But so far, democratic leaders haven't been outed for adopting a policy of "NO" and their voting record doesn't reflect such a policy either.
To be honest-- and not showboating or stuff like that - while the Dems seem softheaded at times- the Republicans seem deeply hypocritical and a bit scary. Hypocritical in that they keep getting caught doing stuff they say should be illegal. Scary as in Dominionism, Oligarchy, and Theocracy.
Any evidence of Pelosi blocking Roberts, Scalia, Rehnquist, etc.?
Roberts was confirmed as Chief Justice by a full Senate vote of 78â"22.
All 55 Republicans voted to confirm Roberts and 22 Democrats voting yes. Similar votes (and not endless filibusters and procedural roadblocks) for other conservative justices.
*Forgot to say the above durations are a quote from another board where this is being discussed in my other post. The names / months list isn't mine (tho it's public record).
The senate is expected to confirm offices in a reasonable time. Voting "no" to everything and filibustering everything (as they decided to do in 2009) is not doing their job.
Imagine if the democrats turn around and filibuster and block republican nominees for the next eight years.
Negotiating is their main job. Deciding in advance to vote "no" to everything is avoiding doing their job.
It 's why i went from voting for Reagan and Bush Sr., and for 50% of republicans in 2008 to voting for no republicans period in 2010. Right now, I won't vote for a republican for dog catcher. I don't even want them to get their career started in the first place if they are going to refuse to negotiate.
I'm sorry for your loss. That is fairly young. I am glad you had 20 happy years.
There is a large group of the population who die 45 to 60 from cancer and then another who pass 61-70 from cardiac disease.
odd moderation of my parent post. I wonder if it was a liberal who couldn't stand that a fellow liberal could say something about Scalia without bile and venom or a conservative who thought it wasn't positive enough. lol.
I'm sorry he died. It does look like he lead a long life doing what he loved. He was a lucky man in that regard.
I disagree with his policies strongly and hope we are able to replace him with a reasonable justice.
On a sort of unrelated note-- he was only 79! So keep that in mind for your retirement plans. Despite having some of the best health care in the world, most of us are dead by 82. And 98.4% are dead by age 90.
Try to retire early and take up a second career doing something you love doing. I love doing therapeutic massage for people in pain. I didn't hate being a project manager too much but it was unpleasant with long hours and holiday work and always just a way to make money.
I thought I'd be drawing and painting more than I have. But reading Splat the Cat says "Sorry" to my grandsons is priceless.
Scalia leaves behind a wife and nine children (unless some have died). Who knows how many grand children.
He looks overweight in recent photos. That might be a side effect of medication (ala Jerry Lewis) or it may have been something that contributed to his early death. Keep in mind that puff pastry or extra gravy might cost you a few years with your grand kids. Not to mention change the course of the country.
I mean wow. ~Ten more months and it might have been a conservative jurist who replaced him. Even with filibustering and so on, I think Obama will seat this one. If the conservatives actually filibuster for 10 months, I think the democrats should filibuster any conservative justice nominee until the end of the term.
Quote: Has anyone ever served as both President and Chief Justice?
William Howard Taft is the only person to have served as both President of the United States (1909-1913) and Chief Justice of the United States (1921-1930).
Slashdot Mirror
Whoa whoa whoa.
Firstly, if you have 80% of the money, it's reasonable to expect you to pay 80% of the taxes.
If you have 40% of the income, it's reasonable to expect you to pay 40% of the income tax (and when you consider even minimal standard deductions to pay over 40%).
BUT stop for a cotten picken minute saying the poor pay no taxes.
The average poor person pays the going rate for sales tax, pays 7.5% for social security (15% if self employed), and with gas tax, cigarette tax, car license tax the typical state portion of a poor person's income is roughly 11%.
The average wealthy person pays roughly .3% of their income in social security and state taxes. It's a little more fair in some states like South Carolina. And that's only for wealthy people who have a salary/wages. Those who live off investment income pay as little as 13% while the poor person next door is losing close to 30% of their income to state,city, and local taxes.
PLUS- when you break the poor down- you get two groups.
1) Anyone without children- pays taxes. Even making only $12,000 a year they pay $600 in federal income taxes.
2) It's the poor people with children that skew the system. They pay no tax and even receive tax credits of up to a couple grand. And who's going to remove the standard exemption for children?
Heck- just recently (2014) 7,000 people who made a million dollars paid NO FEDERAL INCOME TAX. That's equivalent to 350,000 poor people.
So stop harping on how the poor pay no federal income tax unless you are going to mention that the wealthy basically pay no state and local taxes. (under 1% of their income).
Wealthy is top 1.67% in the context of this article. Poor is the bottom 20% in the context of this article.
Everyone gets a standard deduction of roughly $6,200 and 1 exemption of $3,950. If a person makes under $10,150 then that means they pay no federal income tax. The standard deduction only reduces the tax burden of the poor by 10% (lowest marginal tax rate) $600). The SAME standard deduction lowers federal taxes of everyone in the top tax bracket by roughly $2400 (39.6%).
Except numerous justices have been nominated in the last year of a president's term and also dozens of justices justice's were given a vote (that included YES votes by 20+ democrats ) within 90 days and that's even as recently as Roberts and Scalia,.
Basically, by saying they will vote no to any candidate- the republicans have tossed out the constitution. Don't they see that the result of this could be entire decades when every justice and every cabinet post is filibustered and never filled.
Article II, section 2 is meant to be a check on abuse by the president- not a method of abuse by the Senate.
---
In the larger picture- I think it would be grand if the republicans did this.
The democrats benefit much more from increased voter turnout. And having both the supreme court AND the presidency at stake combined with 8 months of the republicans blocking every candidate regardless of how moderate they were would result in an incredible democratic turnout. The republicans might even lose a lot of seats in the house and some in the senate.
I agree and there's not an easy way to address it short of the republicans realizing what is at risk and returning to the tradition of peaceful and civil transitions of power.
A constitutional convention would not be run by people of the quality of Washington, Jefferson, Franklin- heck, even Hamilton. It would likely be a runaway convention that destroyed the country.
The law (even the constitution) only goes so far. After that it depends on good and reasonable people.
I'm not sure why the republicans got so spun up. If anything the democrats are more conservative than they were in the 60s, 70s, and 80s.
I'd say religion but religious people didn't used to be so extreme so it has to be something cultural and bigger than religion going on.
I see it in the people celebrating scalia's death on the liberal side. Heck,- couldn't they have waited 24 hours to post nasty crap about Scalia?
Civility is part of the foundation of the u.s.a.'s success.
Our entire nation runs on precedents as much as legal systems.
If you start ignoring the precedents of senatorial behavior set for the past 100 years with regard to judicial and cabinet appointments, you are literally risking the destruction of the united states.
And once one party starts it, the other is eventually going to have to reply in kind.
Great and thoughtful comment. it was a pleasure ot read.
Good point on Obama's luck!
I'm surprised I didn't see this.
If the republicans filibuster and refuse to approve a supreme court justice until the election then voter turnout is going to be huge.
This is an issue that would electrify the voters.
It's my impression that democrats benefit a lot more from voter turnout than republicans so this would be a bad move by republicans.
So the likely way this will play out is that Obama will nominate a safe, moderate judge with mild liberal leanings and the republicans will approve the nominee.
If the republicans turn down a reasonable nomination for judge, it's likely to cost them the election (and maybe even some house and senate seats).
Of course then the question is-- what if obama nominates a left wing judge? Not sure who comes off worse in that case.
Anyway, many judges (including scalia and roberts) were nominated and voted for in less than 90 days (and with a lot of yes votes from democrats).
If the republicans block confirmation of a reasonable nominee- I think it's a yoooge mistake.
(so they'll probably try to paint any nominee much more left than the nominee really is). Obama has been fairly cagey so I think he'll make the right move here and pick a very qualified, mildly liberal judge, with a ton of experience.
Do you think the U.S. would be where it is today if that were true?
Being "fair" was a big U.S. virtue thru Clinton. It started getting lost during the Bush years. I think because the religious group associated with the republican party felt things were too important to be fair. Ted Cruz father is the first christian I've EVER heard of in my entire life who advocating lying to non-believers.
It all fell apart when Obama got elected and the republican party decided to vote no to everything. I'm not what the basis for that decision was. Was it religious? Was it racist? Was it purely political? But it was unprecedented for the opposition party not to negotiate in good faith, hold a vote, and then move on relatively efficiently to the next issue instead of voting against bills 30+ times, filibustering bills two or three times before they voted yes for the bill, and filibustering a large number of the presidents nominees.
and the soviet union and china and viet nam and cuba (1950s) and ... well a rational person would get the idea by now.
High GINI, high unemployment == lots of misery and dead people.
Not just the wealthy either (and some times they escape).
All those wealthy people in Monico will be plundered at some point too. They have a ton of cash and no military to protect it. It's just a matter of time.
Too much ballast out at the tip of the boat-- time to rebalance with inheritance, wealth taxes, and limits on how much executive salaries can be deducted as a business expense.
All the health care in the world won't protect you from stress, high work hours, lack of exercise, and a poor diet.
Slight difference. They are not condemning gay sex right and advocating prison for gays before they were caught having .. um .. having gay sex.
Clinton acted inappropriately but he wasn't advocating prison for adulterers while engaging in adultery.
I'm sure you can't see the difference.... but I'm writing this for the independents.
Dude, they've thrown capitalism away over and over throughout history because it always ends with 99.999% of the people starving and .001% of the people having all the power and wealth.
At some point the 99.999% lose hope and go ape-shit.
Some of the wealthy see this and try to keep things "fair" enough to prevent the breakdown but most of the wealthy sincerely thing they are better and deserve to eat $3,000 meals while people starve to death.
Capitalism doesn't even NEED to be abused to spin out of control. That's it's natural state. Eventually all the money ends up on the tip of the boat and it sinks again. Once all the money is on the investment side of the house, the 99% lack enough money to keep the economy going with purchases. Investment NEEDS consumers. Yin to Yang.
Good point on Disney!
Think about it...
* Disease free (at least at first and likely for a few decades)
* Endless capacity (For both genders.. tho there is the Sybian for women now)
* Totally objectifiable
* Easy to change appearance to keep it fresh.
* Seniors in Japan have bonded emotional with much less sophisticated robots.
The question is how close to AI is the AI. Because if it is too close, it's slavery again.
It needs to be a machine that does a good simulation but lacks consciousness.
You forgot the caveat.
UNLESS you are a rich or powerful republican (perhaps a senator or representative).
Then any kind of sex is okay. Gay sex, extra marital sex, sodomy, sex with multiple partners and drugs at the same time-- it's all good. The rules only the Hoi polloi.
That's one reason i stopped voting republican. They were such massive hypocrites about sex.
About 8% manage it the first time around.
It's harder than you think.
But grats if you were one of the lucky ones!
And you really only have to kill about 2% quickly and society ceases to function well (food delivery, power generation, etc.).
Even more so in these "lean" and mean times we live in where many companies have single points of failure around employees.
Being able to work from home might mitigate some of the effect that this might have had a decade ago tho.
Yes, despite being wealthy, powerful, and having the best health care in the world, wealthy rich powerful u.s. citizens die all the time between 50 and 80.
However, people with good jobs at large corporations also have good health care. And at medium size companies.
Not so much for small companies and pre-ACA, only nearly worthless catastrophic plans for individuals or self employed unless they were wealthy.
Despite this, a little under 2% of americans do make it to 90 and many of them are not wealthy. They just won the lottery in some way ( good genes mostly).
Film at 11 pm tonight.
Both parties behaved better and actually negotiated prior to 2008. As I said, I used to vote republican. It wasn't all their voting pattern. I'm a fiscal conservative but a social liberal so we parted ways there too.
Republicans filibustering and voting no for 9 months (close to 10) might be the reason democrats would start behaving like republicans.
But so far, democratic leaders haven't been outed for adopting a policy of "NO" and their voting record doesn't reflect such a policy either.
To be honest-- and not showboating or stuff like that - while the Dems seem softheaded at times- the Republicans seem deeply hypocritical and a bit scary. Hypocritical in that they keep getting caught doing stuff they say should be illegal. Scary as in Dominionism, Oligarchy, and Theocracy.
This is redundant but your post merits it...
Confirmation time:
Kagan: 3 months
Sotomayor: 2 months
Alito: 2 months
Meirs: withdrawn same month
Roberts: 2 months (well, two attempts at one month each)
Breyer: 2 months
Ginsburg: 2 months
Thomas: 3 months
Souter: 3 months
Kennedy: 3 months
Bork: 3 months (rejected 1987)
Scalia: 3 months
Rehnquist: 3 months
Any evidence of Pelosi blocking Roberts, Scalia, Rehnquist, etc.?
Roberts was confirmed as Chief Justice by a full Senate vote of 78â"22.
All 55 Republicans voted to confirm Roberts and 22 Democrats voting yes.
Similar votes (and not endless filibusters and procedural roadblocks) for other conservative justices.
*Forgot to say the above durations are a quote from another board where this is being discussed in my other post. The names / months list isn't mine (tho it's public record).
Exactly... here's what SHOULD happen...
Confirmation time:
Kagan: 3 months
Sotomayor: 2 months
Alito: 2 months
Meirs: withdrawn same month
Roberts: 2 months (well, two attempts at one month each)
Breyer: 2 months
Ginsburg: 2 months
Thomas: 3 months
Souter: 3 months
Kennedy: 3 months
Bork: 3 months (rejected 1987)
Scalia: 3 months
Rehnquist: 3 months
The republicans are saying, "It doesn't matter who Obama nominates- we vote NO in advance."
I hope it comes back to bite their shiny metal asses when it comes to independent voters if they follow thru on that plan.
Why thank you. Your comment gave me some happiness and a smile. I appreciate your comment. It was insightful to me about my own comment too. lol!
I agree. He claimed to be an original intent guy but frequently ruled by current conservative desires in conflict with the text.
In reality, Scalia's interpretation of the constitution seemed to be "whatever Scalia wants-- Scalia gets."
The senate is expected to confirm offices in a reasonable time. Voting "no" to everything and filibustering everything (as they decided to do in 2009) is not doing their job.
Imagine if the democrats turn around and filibuster and block republican nominees for the next eight years.
Negotiating is their main job. Deciding in advance to vote "no" to everything is avoiding doing their job.
It 's why i went from voting for Reagan and Bush Sr., and for 50% of republicans in 2008 to voting for no republicans period in 2010. Right now, I won't vote for a republican for dog catcher. I don't even want them to get their career started in the first place if they are going to refuse to negotiate.
I'm sorry for your loss. That is fairly young. I am glad you had 20 happy years.
There is a large group of the population who die 45 to 60 from cancer and then another who pass 61-70 from cardiac disease.
odd moderation of my parent post. I wonder if it was a liberal who couldn't stand that a fellow liberal could say something about Scalia without bile and venom or a conservative who thought it wasn't positive enough. lol.
I'm sorry he died. It does look like he lead a long life doing what he loved. He was a lucky man in that regard.
I disagree with his policies strongly and hope we are able to replace him with a reasonable justice.
On a sort of unrelated note-- he was only 79! So keep that in mind for your retirement plans. Despite having some of the best health care in the world, most of us are dead by 82. And 98.4% are dead by age 90.
Try to retire early and take up a second career doing something you love doing. I love doing therapeutic massage for people in pain. I didn't hate being a project manager too much but it was unpleasant with long hours and holiday work and always just a way to make money.
I thought I'd be drawing and painting more than I have. But reading Splat the Cat says "Sorry" to my grandsons is priceless.
Scalia leaves behind a wife and nine children (unless some have died). Who knows how many grand children.
He looks overweight in recent photos. That might be a side effect of medication (ala Jerry Lewis) or it may have been something that contributed to his early death. Keep in mind that puff pastry or extra gravy might cost you a few years with your grand kids. Not to mention change the course of the country.
I mean wow. ~Ten more months and it might have been a conservative jurist who replaced him. Even with filibustering and so on, I think Obama will seat this one. If the conservatives actually filibuster for 10 months, I think the democrats should filibuster any conservative justice nominee until the end of the term.
Fun Supreme Court Factoids.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/fa...
Quote:
Has anyone ever served as both President and Chief Justice?
William Howard Taft is the only person to have served as both President of the United States (1909-1913) and Chief Justice of the United States (1921-1930).