If you were to write tax policy...

[ATFFL]

For reference:

Bush v. Gore (2000) [00-949]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Emsworth]

It clearly was not, as Hawaii had electors appointed January 4th, 1961, and the 1876 election dragged on for 4 months.

Did you read the words "state law" in one of my previous posts? Florida state law made the federal deadline binding. I quote from a decision of the Florida Supreme Court, Gore v. Harris, in refuting allegations of the Gore camp: "There is no legislative suggestion that the Florida Legislature did not want to take advantage of this safe-harbor provision."

Hawaii did not have a comparable state law making the safe harbor date an actual deadline. Furthermore, in 1876, any deadlines were specifically vitiated by an Act of Congress. There was no comparable Act of Congress in 2000. Hawaii and the election of 1876 are irrelevant.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The difference in the machines was irrelevant. There was some reasonably well-defined manner in which votes were originally counted.

The recount was unconstitutional because it was carried out in a completely arbitrary fashion.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

It clearly was not, as Hawaii had electors appointed January 4th, 1961, and the 1876 election dragged on for 4 months.

Did you read the words "state law" in one of my previous posts? Florida state law made the federal deadline binding. I quote from a decision of the Florida Supreme Court, Gore v. Harris, in refuting allegations of the Gore camp: "There is no legislative suggestion that the Florida Legislature did not want to take advantage of this safe-harbor provision."

Hawaii did not have a comparable state law making the safe harbor date an actual deadline. Furthermore, in 1876, any deadlines were specifically vitiated by an Act of Congress. There was no comparable Act of Congress in 2000. Hawaii and the election of 1876 are irrelevant.

Clearly the FL Supreme Court or the SCOTUS had the power to over-ride any supposed state deadline that you have not shown proof of existing.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The difference in the machines was irrelevant. There was some reasonably well-defined manner in which votes were originally counted.

The recount was unconstitutional because it was carried out in a completely arbitrary fashion.
[/quote]

The voting machines in Republican areas had much much higher spoilage rates. It disenfranchied many many Democrats when only their punch card didn't go 100% through,  and it was one of those "hanging chads".

He wanted a statewide recount. How is that arbitrary?


I see that you have not addressed the point I made that the SCOTUS ended the recount THREE DAYS before your sacred deadline. Nothing to say there? Cat got your tounge? Yeah, your right-wing argument has been destroyed.  Let's face it, you are a Republican who supports stealing elections.

[Emsworth]

Clearly the FL Supreme Court or the SCOTUS had the power to over-ride any supposed state deadline that you have not shown proof of existing.

(A) I have shown proof of its existence. Did you notice the quotation from the Florida Supreme Court's ruling? In Gore v. Harris: "There is no legislative suggestion that the Florida Legislature did not want to take advantage of this safe-harbor provision." Also, to quote from the statement of facts in Bush v. Gore: "The Florida Supreme Court has said that the Florida Legislature intended to obtain the safe-harbor benefits of 3 U.S.C. § 5." Thus, the safe-harbor benefits provided by federal law were secured by state law. What more do you want, than an official interpretation of the law by the state Supreme Court?

(B) Article II prevents the courts from overriding this deadline. "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors..." Once the FL Supreme Court admitted that December 12 was a legislatively set deadline, it could not change it.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What Gore wanted (a statewide recount of all votes with a uniform standard) was not arbitrary. What Florida provided (recounts in only some counties of only some votes with no standards at all) was.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I've already said that the injunction was based on unsound legal reasoning. The ultimate decision that the Florida recount was unconstitutional, however, was legally sound.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Clearly the FL Supreme Court or the SCOTUS had the power to over-ride any supposed state deadline that you have not shown proof of existing.

(A) I have shown proof of its existence. Did you notice the quotation from the Florida Supreme Court's ruling? In Gore v. Harris: "There is no legislative suggestion that the Florida Legislature did not want to take advantage of this safe-harbor provision." Also, to quote from the statement of facts in Bush v. Gore: "The Florida Supreme Court has said that the Florida Legislature intended to obtain the safe-harbor benefits of 3 U.S.C. § 5." Thus, the safe-harbor benefits provided by federal law were secured by state law. What more do you want, than an official interpretation of the law by the state Supreme Court?

(B) Article II prevents the courts from overriding this deadline. "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors..." Once the FL Supreme Court admitted that December 12 was a legislatively set deadline, it could not change it.

You mean a state law that they would pass after the election? But the SCOTUS said that only the laws that existed on election day must apply to the election. There goes that argument.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What Gore wanted (a statewide recount of all votes with a uniform standard) was not arbitrary. What Florida provided (recounts in only some counties of only some votes with no standards at all) was.

[/quote]
The FL Supreme Court had made a ruling December 8th, calling for a uniform statewide recount. What was the matter with that ruling?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I've already said that the injunction was based on unsound legal reasoning. The ultimate decision that the Florida recount was unconstitutional, however, was legally sound.
[/quote]

Let's get it clear. The SCOTUS ended the recount effective December 9th, 2000 in the Bush vs. Gore case. Don't give me any more bullsh**t that they ended it only after the deadline elapsed, because it only didn't make the deadline because of the SCOTUS themselves. Do you have a problem with this statement? "In the Bush vs. Gore case, the SCOTUS ended the recount December 9th, 2000, 3 days before the sacred deadline".  I'm detecting some pretty pathetic right-wing spin here.

[Emsworth]

You mean a state law that they would pass after the election? But the SCOTUS said that only the laws that existed on election day must apply to the election. There goes that argument.

No, the intent of the Legislature prior to the election was what applied.

A few devious Florida legislators (IIRC) wanted to essentially ignore the election and appoint electors, which would obviously have been unconstitutional, as the election had already occurred, rendering the law an ex post facto one.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No standards were specified, if I recall correctly.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I agree. They should not have done so.

But that doesn't change my main point, that the recount was unconstitutionally conducted.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

You mean a state law that they would pass after the election? But the SCOTUS said that only the laws that existed on election day must apply to the election. There goes that argument.

No, the intent of the Legislature prior to the election was what applied.

A few devious Florida legislators (IIRC) wanted to essentially ignore the election and appoint electors, which would obviously have been unconstitutional, as the election had already occurred, rendering the law an ex post facto one.

You really think the SCOTUS would have found that unconstitional? You really are a fool.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No standards were specified, if I recall correctly.
[/quote]
The FL supreme court called for a statewide recount with uniform standards, just like Gore had been calling for. It was just that a lot of the Republican controlled counties were dragging their feet.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I agree. They should not have done so.

But that doesn't change my main point, that the recount was unconstitutionally conducted.
[/quote]

WTF was unconstitonal about it? So you agree that there was a problem that the SCOTUS ended the recount 3 days before the non-binding deadline that you think is so ing important? Why couldn't those 5 partisan Republican assholes have waited?

[Emsworth]

You really think the SCOTUS would have found that unconstitional?

Did I say that? Perhaps next time you would actually bother to read my post. I said it "would obviously have been unconstitutional," not that it "would have been found unconstitutional."

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well, I see no point in responding as long as you continue to assert that the deadline was non-binding, even though I have provided clear evidence to the contrary in the form of court opinions.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Really, I don't see why I even bother responding to you. I have attempted to remain civil, but you seem deteremined (with all due respect) to drag this debate to personal attacks.

[A18]

Let's face it. Jfern is a Republican who supports stealing elections.

[Democratic Hawk]

Progressive income tax with rates of 5% (from $10000 to $25000), 20% (from $25000 to $75000) and 35% (over $75000); first $10000 would be exempt from taxation

Progressive corporation tax at two rates 20% and 35%: 20% (on profits from $75,000 to $1,000,000) and 35% (all profits exceeding $1,000,000); first $75000 would be exempt

National sales tax of 7.5% (with exemptions for lower earners up to an annual income of $20000)

Dave

[A18]

Personal Exemptions:
Single - $15,000
Married - $30,000
Dependent - $4,000

All other credits, exemptions, and deductions repealed...

taxable income under $40,000 -- 1%
taxable income over $1,000,000 -- 25%

[Emsworth]

Personal Exemptions:
Single - $15,000
Married - $30,000
Dependent - $4,000

All other credits, exemptions, and deductions repealed...

taxable income under $40,000 -- 1%
taxable income over $1,000,000 -- 25%

With marginal relief between $40 K and $1 million, I presume?

[A18]

Yes. I just roughly adjusted the 1920s numbers for inflation.

[Emsworth]

I would suggest three brackets of 15%, 20%, and 25% each. I couldn't give the precise figures as to the size of each bracket, as I don't have the figures to do the necessary calculations. Perhaps, for singles:

Exemption: $25,000

$0 - $100,000: 15%
$100,000 - $250,000: 20%
$250,000+: 25%

In any event, estate tax, gift tax, and, especially, the AMT should be eliminated.

[jokerman]

Income Tax:  First $15,000 is exempt ($30,000 for married couples when both are working), for Married couples the rate paid is the average of the two rates were the couples to file seperately.  Also when filing seperately, each get's $8,000 deduction for spouse.  $4,000 deduction for each dependent child, but caps down to $2,000 per child after fourth.
         
$20,000-$40,000 15%
$40,000-$80,000 18.5%
$80,000-$150,000 22%
$150,000-$250,000 28%
$250,000-$500,000 33%
$500,000-$1,000,000 38%
$1,000,000-$5,000,000 43%
$5,000,000-$10,000,000 48%
$10,000,000-$25,000,000 54%
$25,000,000+ 60%

Corporate Income Tax:  First $80,000 is exempt.  Flat 22% rate, with deductions from subsidies not amounting to more than 15% of taxed income.

Estate Tax: All estates over $2,000,000 taxed 25%

Gifts:  All gifts in value of over $2,500,000 taxed 20%.

5% Sales tax for luxury goods and services


Something like that

[A18]

Talk about horribly oppressive rates. I would favor violent revolution if that ever happened.

[jokerman]

Talk about horribly oppressive rates. I would favor violent revolution if that ever happened.

Well I'm not really sure how much income that would produce.  If it would generate a significant amount more than now I would proportionally drop all of the rates slightly.

[Emsworth]

Talk about horribly oppressive rates. I would favor violent revolution if that ever happened.

Well I'm not really sure how much income that would produce.  If it would generate a significant amount more than now I would proportionally drop all of the rates slightly.

Actually, significantly higher income tax rates don't necessarily generate more income, counterintuitive though it may seem. With low tax rates, there is likely to be more economic activity, and hence the total revenue of the government will not be reduced.

For example, when Andrew Mellon cut the top rate from 70% to just 25%, revenues rose significantly. When President Kennedy cut FDR's top rate from 90% to 70%, I believe that tax revenues were increased by about one-third (in real terms). Hence, higher tax rates don't necessarily translate to more tax revenue; often, the government will get more revenue with lower rates.

To quote Jack Kemp: "There are, after all, two rates that yield the same amount of revenue: high tax rates on low production, or low rates on high production."

[jokerman]

Talk about horribly oppressive rates. I would favor violent revolution if that ever happened.

Well I'm not really sure how much income that would produce.  If it would generate a significant amount more than now I would proportionally drop all of the rates slightly.

Actually, significantly higher income tax rates don't necessarily generate more income, counterintuitive though it may seem. With low tax rates, there is likely to be more economic activity, and hence the total revenue of the government will not be reduced.

For example, when Andrew Mellon cut the top rate from 70% to just 25%, revenues rose significantly. When President Kennedy cut FDR's top rate from 90% to 70%, I believe that tax revenues were increased by about one-third (in real terms). Hence, higher tax rates don't necessarily translate to more tax revenue; often, the government will get more revenue with lower rates.

To quote Jack Kemp: "There are, after all, two rates that yield the same amount of revenue: high tax rates on low production, or low rates on high production."

Sometimes true, but in the long run government developement of human capital can signficiantly to the economy.  Plus, my tax rates are really not that high where they would be on the steep end of the laffer curve, so there wouldn't be a dramatic impact on the tax base, if any.

[Emsworth]

Sometimes true, but in the long run government developement of human capital can signficiantly to the economy.  Plus, my tax rates are really not that high where they would be on the steep end of the laffer curve, so there wouldn't be a dramatic impact on the tax base, if any.

I would say that a 60% tax rate (although marginal) borders on being confiscatory. The top marginal tax rate, ideally, should be closer to 25%.

In any event, you seem intent on generating a lot of revenue. Welfare and/or Social Security, I presume?

[A18]

Good point. When a corporation loses one hundred cents of every dollar it loses, but is permitted to keep only fifty cents of every dollar it gains, its policies are affected. It does not expand its operations, or expands only those with minimal risk.

The same is true of individuals. High marginal rates discourage risk-taking with capital.