Cell Tax Ban Proposed Again
Hmm...I disagree with this
Oh...
🤣
OK, sorry, but thanks for the laugh! First of all, cutting taxes will not result in cutting expenditures. See: 2011 federal budget and $1.3 trillion deficit.
And, why wouldn't you want services to be cut? Do you actually want the size of government to increase? Do you even know what the vision of the Founders was?
I'm sure most of these taxes originated during the early to mid 90's when mobile devices weren't as popular and used by corporations and people with higher incomes (not that's an excuse). But things are different now, you're hurting the average consumer. These taxes should be removed, or lowered to under 10% including the local sales tax.
If someone doesn't want or don't fee...
(continues)
You are all missing the point, so I will make it rudely obvious:
The federal government is, by the Supreme Law of the Land, the United States Constitution, not allowed to infringe upon the rights of the states.
I hate taxes. I hate everything about them. I hate the Sixteenth Amendment. I hate giving away my hard-earned money. I make $16,000 a year and I pay regular price for my cell phone bill, so I know what it is like to be a 'regular' consumer.
However, just because it is convenient for the federal government to intervene does not mean that I am going to justify it. I...
(continues)
I believe that some people do want the best, but as the saying goes "All power corrupts, absolutely power corrupts absolutely".
In this sense we can only vote for what we believe to the best candidate, and in voting straight party you are doing yourself no favors. You are simply giving a certain party absolute power of your choices and decisions.
Yes our country could do so much more, but we will have to accept it for what it is now and change it as we go, and if everyone agrees maybe it will work.
Blame South Carolina for starting a war that the South lost. I cannot believe we are having this discussion in 2011. If wireless consumers are already being taxed at twice the rate of other consumer goods then that is a bad thing. Period. What did you look at the politicians who were supporting it and say to yourself, "Rush wouldn't support this so I am not allowed to either." Think for yourself and maybe re-evaluate your political ideology while you're at it. You don't pass the Libertarian test to me. More like a Social Conservative by what I've read from you in the Lounge.
Is this not an issue of morals? It is to me. Politics are morals. The issue of taxation is indeed one of morals - at least for me.
Do I adhere strictly to the beliefs of Libertarianism? Hell no. It's simply the best way to quickly describe my political philosophy, because I more closely adhere to Libertarianism than I do any other political philosophy, but you shouldn't be so quick to wrongly assume. From what you've posted in the loun...
(continues)
Joby Dick said:
I consider myself a Libertarian, so it may sound odd that I would be against a moratorium on taxes, but I don't feel it is just for the federal government to impose upon a State's right to tax. I understand the intention is good, but I cannot morally support the federal government yet again impeding upon State's rights. What's next? Universal healthcare?
Oh...
Just another reason to get a good pre-paid service and pay virtually no taxes.
But that's not the point. The point is, states [supposedly] have rights, and those rights are granted by the Tenth Amendment of the Constitution. Banning their right to taxation is, technically, unconstitutional. But what can we expect? The Seventeenth Amendment made sure that the states lost fair representation in Congress.
Joby Dick said:
You're missing the point. Do you think that I, an advocate of near-anarchy level government, would ever be in favor of an increase in taxes? Of course not!
But that's not the point. The point is, states [supposedly] have rights, and those rights are granted by the Tenth Amendment of the Constitution. Banning their right to taxation is, technically, unconstitutional. But what can we expect? The Seventeenth Amendment made sure that the states lost fair representation in Congress.
I'll stick with my right to eat.
No. The Senate was originally designed to be disconnected from the people in order to more efficiently serve the states. Originally, Senators were elected by State legislatures. The 17th changed it to where the people elect Senators, which was the intended purpose of the House. Now, we just have a cluster**** of ignorant votes, and both the House and the Senate serve the people, while states are left behind.
Joby Dick said:
Do I adhere strictly to the beliefs of Libertarianism? Hell no. It's simply the best way to quickly describe my political philosophy, because I more closely adhere to Libertarianism than I do any other political philosophy
Uh, thanks, I guess, for pointing out what I already said.
Jefferson had foolish ideas of government at times. He wanted an extremely weak federal government (AoC weak), a weak military, and he wanted the US to remain a rural agricultural land. He was too radical at times even for me.
As for your comment on state powers, you do know that you're wrong, don't you? The Virginia Plan (also known as the 'Big States Plan') and the New Jersey Plan (also known as t...
(continues)
Azeron said:
The Constitution doesn't GIVE rights to anyone. It LIMITS the power of the Federal Government.
You make an excellent point, and I concede. +1
Stating that powers belong to the States or the People is unnecessary.
Why?
The point is We the People cannot trust ANY government to do the right thing. As far as I am concerned one is a lion and the other a jackal. The people are a man who has to use all of his wits to survive. If one attacks the man and the other intercedes in my view that is a GOOD thing. It is my desire to keep the two at one another's throats fighting for the prize that is the man's flesh (his liberty, his life his self-determination) for as long as possible. So the States Rights versus Federal Power debate is a false one in my view. The framers placed checks in the Constitution which simply do not work. The Executive Branch has seized powers it does not have. W...
(continues)
While this really isn't the forum for all of this, I will say this, the founding fathers of the Constitution allowed for Amendments, the 17th Amendment was legally put into place for better or worse. I happen to agree with direct election of the Senate. I do understand what you're saying. The NJ Compromise really isn't abrogated because each state, only has two Senators.
Fact number two there is no such thing as shared wealth, only shares poverty.
It's not weather or not the feds have the right to do this or not its the exertion of power and setting the precedence. Never before in my adult life have I seen so many cases where BOTH sides are pushing the envelope as to where one jurisdiction ends and the other begins. It has been an all out mad Achilles yard power grab between the states and the federal government and the people are losing big time.
Yes, I would like a lower or in this case a stabilized...
(continues)
To often the solution for trying to balance the budget (both state and fed) is to raise taxes and fees. Instead how about they look at their own overblown salaries, pensions, and benifits.
I for one am sick of paying more of my hard earned money because some idiot wants to act like a teenager with daddys' checkbook.
🙄
This forum is closed.