Speaker of the House - Who's up next? Welcome, Rep Mike Johnson - Louisiana

[TigerGrowls]

 

[CUT93]

Wasnt the income tax put in the same way though and never removed?

I honestly do not know.

 

[TigerGrowls]

I honestly do not know.

Found it. The income tax enabled the federal govt to become the leviathan that it is today. Funny that the income tax was made permanent just as the federal reserve was also created. I am sure it was not a coincidence.

How Income Tax Went From Temporary To Permanent

The Federal Income Tax was originally introduced over 100 years ago dating back to 1862. While Abraham Lincoln was in office a bill called The Revenue Act of 1862 was signed into law becoming the f…

the41stamendment.blog

The Federal Income Tax was originally introduced over 100 years ago dating back to 1862. While Abraham Lincoln was in office a bill called The Revenue Act of 1862 was signed into law becoming the first ever income tax. This was done for emergency purposes and was supposed to be temporary to help fund the war at the time with an expiration date set in 1866. Taxes were surprisingly higher at the time with a rate of 3% on income $600-$10,000, 5% on income $10,000+. In 1864 rates went up to 5% on income $600-$10,000, 7.5% on income $5,000-$10,000 and 10% on income $10,000+.

The Revenue Act of 1862 didn’t expire until 6 years after the original expiration date in 1872 but this didn’t stop the government from collecting income tax. In fact they collected the income tax all the way up to 1895 when the US Supreme Court declared the income tax unconstitutional (Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan and Trust Company). This event led to the 16th amendment being drafted in 1913 which gave congress power to set and collect taxes on income. Some blame Abraham Lincoln for the blood sucking Income Tax that exist today while others blame William Taft due to him advocating for it to be permanent. Unfortunately citizens must still pay the income tax regardless how they feel and who they blame.

 

[dbjork6317]

Found it. The income tax enabled the federal govt to become the leviathan that it is today. Funny that the income tax was made permanent just as the federal reserve was also created. I am sure it was not a coincidence.

How Income Tax Went From Temporary To Permanent

The Federal Income Tax was originally introduced over 100 years ago dating back to 1862. While Abraham Lincoln was in office a bill called The Revenue Act of 1862 was signed into law becoming the f…

the41stamendment.blog

The Federal Income Tax was originally introduced over 100 years ago dating back to 1862. While Abraham Lincoln was in office a bill called The Revenue Act of 1862 was signed into law becoming the first ever income tax. This was done for emergency purposes and was supposed to be temporary to help fund the war at the time with an expiration date set in 1866. Taxes were surprisingly higher at the time with a rate of 3% on income $600-$10,000, 5% on income $10,000+. In 1864 rates went up to 5% on income $600-$10,000, 7.5% on income $5,000-$10,000 and 10% on income $10,000+.

The Revenue Act of 1862 didn’t expire until 6 years after the original expiration date in 1872 but this didn’t stop the government from collecting income tax. In fact they collected the income tax all the way up to 1895 when the US Supreme Court declared the income tax unconstitutional (Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan and Trust Company). This event led to the 16th amendment being drafted in 1913 which gave congress power to set and collect taxes on income. Some blame Abraham Lincoln for the blood sucking Income Tax that exist today while others blame William Taft due to him advocating for it to be permanent. Unfortunately citizens must still pay the income tax regardless how they feel and who they blame.

Lol this makes it sound like income taxes were some sort of sneaky conspiracy the government somehow ninja’d onto the American people. A constitutional amendment was ratified by 42 of the 48 states in 1913. This wasn’t something the government put in place against the will of the American people.

 

[TigerGrowls]

Lol this makes it sound like income taxes were some sort of sneaky conspiracy the government somehow ninja’d onto the American people. A constitutional amendment was ratified by 42 of the 48 states in 1913. This wasn’t something the government put in place against the will of the American people.

I am sure it was against the will of the people. Do you think many would volunteer to give a percentage of their working wages to the govt if given a choice? There is a lot of disagreement over whether working wages should even be considered taxable income or not.

 

[TigerGrowls]

Your opinion. You stated that we “all” know that these perceived wrongs must be rectified. I’m telling you that’s not true. Not even close. And this coming from a Republican surrounded by other republicans.

Most people I know want him to go away so we can move on. And this is coming from the heavy tax paying part of the Republican Party, not the hayseed wing.

The overall numbers say otherwise. Come back onboard. We have a big ship with lots of room.

 

[TigerGrowls]

 

[dbjork6317]

Do you think many would volunteer to give a percentage of their working wages to the govt if given a choice?

…they did. It literally happened. That’s what the ratification process is for.

There is a lot of disagreement over whether working wages should even be considered taxable income or not.

No there isn’t. Its in the constitution. It is settled legally and you’d need another amendment to eliminate it.

 

[TigerGrowls]

…they did. It literally happened. That’s what the ratification process is for.


No there isn’t. Its in the constitution. It is settled legally and you’d need another amendment to eliminate it.

The political class passed it though. They were not asking the permission of people on the street I agree that it was legally put into law.

 

[dbjork6317]

The political class passed it though. They were not asking the permission of people on the street I agree that it was legally put into law.

This simply isn’t true. There was strong public support for the amendment and most local newspapers endorsed it. 42 states ratified it. The primary people who spoke out against it were - you guessed it - wealthy people like John Rockefeller. The public generally supported it because it allowed the federal government to distribute the tax burden to the wealthy, as the early 1900s were wrought with robber barons who held all the wealth, not much unlike today’s America.

And one only needs to look at today’s America to know that, again, its simply not accurate to state that “people on the street” wouldn’t support taxes or tax increases. There are large chunks of the population who still support increasing income tax rates.

 

[TigerGrowls]

This simply isn’t true. There was strong public support for the amendment and most local newspapers endorsed it. 42 states ratified it. The primary people who spoke out against it were - you guessed it - wealthy people like John Rockefeller. The public generally supported it because it allowed the federal government to distribute the tax burden to the wealthy, as the early 1900s were wrought with robber barons who held all the wealth, not much unlike today’s America.

And one only needs to look at today’s America to know that, again, its simply not accurate to state that “people on the street” wouldn’t support taxes or tax increases. There are large chunks of the population who still support increasing income tax rates.

I would have to see that...you got a link?

 

[fatpiggy]

Interesting that tax rates started out around 3-5%. Now we are up to 30-50% depending on income and state. Not sure if there was a state income tax when it originally started.

 

[scotchtiger]

phasing out more high income recipients, etc.

Is it fair to collect maximum contributions from high earners during their working years and then eliminate or reduce their ability to participate in that program in their retirement? That sort of redistribution doesn’t seem fair at all to me.

 

[fatpiggy]

Is it fair to collect maximum contributions from high earners during their working years and then eliminate or reduce their ability to participate in that program in their retirement? That sort of redistribution doesn’t seem fair at all to me.

Are you also opposed to a graduated tax system (can't think of the correct term) ? That is, the more you make the higher percentage you pay? Seems to be a similar line of thinking. Are you a proponent of a flat tax?

 

[scotchtiger]

Are you also opposed to a graduated tax system (can't think of the correct term) ? That is, the more you make the higher percentage you pay? Seems to be a similar line of thinking. Are you a proponent of a flat tax?

Progressive tax system. I think the current version is excessively punitive for moderately high earners, albeit a bit better since Trumps tax changes. The high tiers all kick by $600K or so. When the complaints of “fair share” are directed at “Wall Street billionaires” and F500 CEOs, this is an odd cut point. People in the mid hundreds get absolutely hammered with taxes and these aren’t excessively wealthy families.

I would probably be more supportive of a more spread out version of the tax tiers vs a flat tax, though the flat tax is an improvement. A flat tax is progressive in practice anyways once you factor in the standard deduction.

A 20% flat tax for someone making $50K with a $25K deduction works out to a 10% tax. Same rate on a person making $200k works out to an 18% tax. That’s fair.

A family making low 6 figures paying a single digit tax rate and my family paying >25% is not equitable. Nor is an ultra high earner sheltering income via loopholes. We should all be contributing more evenly.

 

[scotchtiger]

And one only needs to look at today’s America to know that, again, its simply not accurate to state that “people on the street” wouldn’t support taxes or tax increases. There are large chunks of the population who still support increasing income tax rates.

There are large chunks, actually the majority, who pay little (single digit) to no taxes and wouldn’t be affected by tax increases. No surprise they may support them. Doesn’t make it right.

 

[nytigerfan]

Sincere question…

What “destruction” will Trump actually bring?

Great question. You should ask the 30+ former direct reports of trump who have all gone on record saying that another trump term would be catastrophic for our country.

Sincere question... would you hire someone if 30+ of his former direct reports said these things about him?

Here is what John Kelly, trump's longest lasting Chief of Staff, said the other day.

Kelly set the record straight with on-the-record confirmation of a number of damning stories about statements Trump made behind closed doors attacking US service members and veterans, listing a number of objectionable comments Kelly witnessed Trump make firsthand.

“What can I add that has not already been said?” Kelly said, when asked if he wanted to weigh in on his former boss in light of recent comments made by other former Trump officials. “A person that thinks those who defend their country in uniform, or are shot down or seriously wounded in combat, or spend years being tortured as POWs are all ‘suckers’ because ‘there is nothing in it for them.’ A person that did not want to be seen in the presence of military amputees because ‘it doesn’t look good for me.’ A person who demonstrated open contempt for a Gold Star family – for all Gold Star families – on TV during the 2016 campaign, and rants that our most precious heroes who gave their lives in America’s defense are ‘losers’ and wouldn’t visit their graves in France.


“A person who is not truthful regarding his position on the protection of unborn life, on women, on minorities, on evangelical Christians, on Jews, on working men and women,” Kelly continued. “A person that has no idea what America stands for and has no idea what America is all about. A person who cavalierly suggests that a selfless warrior who has served his country for 40 years in peacetime and war should lose his life for treason – in expectation that someone will take action. A person who admires autocrats and murderous dictators. A person that has nothing but contempt for our democratic institutions, our Constitution, and the rule of law.

“There is nothing more that can be said,” Kelly concluded. “God help us.”

 

[WapPride]

I’ll take the reduced spending option thanks. Already pay the 37% tier plus SS, Medicare, Medicare surcharge, lost exemptions and state and local taxes. I think that’s plenty.

To be fair, you're only taxed 37% on what income you generate over ~$700k (if filing jointly.) it's not like your entire salary is taxed at that amount.

 

[nytigerfan]

That’s not saying a whole lot. I’d vote for a pile of shit before I voted for someone with a D next to their name right now.

Trump is not perfect, but he was elected by We The People and he deserves his chance to govern without interruption by the people in the government.

So, in this case, you are for reparations?

 

[Cocks are Number 1]

Great question. You should ask the 30+ former direct reports of trump who have all gone on record saying that another trump term would be catastrophic for our country.

Sincere question... would you hire someone if 30+ of his former direct reports said these things about him?

Here is what John Kelly, trump's longest lasting Chief of Staff, said the other day.

Kelly set the record straight with on-the-record confirmation of a number of damning stories about statements Trump made behind closed doors attacking US service members and veterans, listing a number of objectionable comments Kelly witnessed Trump make firsthand.

“What can I add that has not already been said?” Kelly said, when asked if he wanted to weigh in on his former boss in light of recent comments made by other former Trump officials. “A person that thinks those who defend their country in uniform, or are shot down or seriously wounded in combat, or spend years being tortured as POWs are all ‘suckers’ because ‘there is nothing in it for them.’ A person that did not want to be seen in the presence of military amputees because ‘it doesn’t look good for me.’ A person who demonstrated open contempt for a Gold Star family – for all Gold Star families – on TV during the 2016 campaign, and rants that our most precious heroes who gave their lives in America’s defense are ‘losers’ and wouldn’t visit their graves in France.


“A person who is not truthful regarding his position on the protection of unborn life, on women, on minorities, on evangelical Christians, on Jews, on working men and women,” Kelly continued. “A person that has no idea what America stands for and has no idea what America is all about. A person who cavalierly suggests that a selfless warrior who has served his country for 40 years in peacetime and war should lose his life for treason – in expectation that someone will take action. A person who admires autocrats and murderous dictators. A person that has nothing but contempt for our democratic institutions, our Constitution, and the rule of law.

“There is nothing more that can be said,” Kelly concluded. “God help us.”

I read that.

I’m skeptical of any and all commentary from former (anything) from both sides. There’s an agenda with every interview/commentary. The piece mentioned is wildly dramatic, just the same as those who spouted the Obama/Kenya noise.

I’ve said many times I’m ready for Trump to move on, but I’m not sure who is the pockets of any voice against him. He’s the ultimate threat to the established status quo.

 

[Willence]

I read that.

I’m skeptical of any and all commentary from former (anything) from both sides. There’s an agenda with every interview/commentary. The piece mentioned is wildly dramatic, just the same as those who spouted the Obama/Kenya noise.

I’ve said many times I’m ready for Trump to move on, but I’m not sure who is the pockets of any voice against him. He’s the ultimate threat to the established status quo.

He's so much more than that. He's probably the single worst thing I've ever seen happen to conservatism. But then, his brand of politics has been brought on him by the absolute fecklessness of conservative leadership before him. There are so many great voices for conservatism but none of them want to get into the mud in terms of politics. They are much more content being media darlings to the people on the right.

Trump is a complete disaster and the stuff I see here celebrating him is alarming to set the least. I don't get the imagery in the view of him and some kind of conquering hero. I will be thrilled when he is gone. There are some good choices on the Republican side this time and we're going to end up with the worst possible option.

 

[nytigerfan]

I read that.

I’m skeptical of any and all commentary from former (anything) from both sides. There’s an agenda with every interview/commentary. The piece mentioned is wildly dramatic, just the same as those who spouted the Obama/Kenya noise.

I’ve said many times I’m ready for Trump to move on, but I’m not sure who is the pockets of any voice against him. He’s the ultimate threat to the established status quo.

You do realize that trump was the one spouting the Obama/Kenya noise, right?

When Obama produced his birth certificate, trump took credit for it.

 

[scotchtiger]

To be fair, you're only taxed 37% on what income you generate over ~$700k (if filing jointly.) it's not like your entire salary is taxed at that amount.

I think it’s in the 600s this year, but yea. And 35% on the earnings in the bracket below. That’s why effective rate is the most relevant %. And we know that the majority of people don’t pay more than a single digit rate, which is why it’s absurd to suggest a family paying >25% are the ones not paying their fair share.

 

[fatpiggy]

So, in this case, you are for reparations?

For people that were actually slaves, yes.

For people who just have a certain skin color? No

 

[fatpiggy]

Progressive tax system. I think the current version is excessively punitive for moderately high earners, albeit a bit better since Trumps tax changes. The high tiers all kick by $600K or so. When the complaints of “fair share” are directed at “Wall Street billionaires” and F500 CEOs, this is an odd cut point. People in the mid hundreds get absolutely hammered with taxes and these aren’t excessively wealthy families.

I would probably be more supportive of a more spread out version of the tax tiers vs a flat tax, though the flat tax is an improvement. A flat tax is progressive in practice anyways once you factor in the standard deduction.

A 20% flat tax for someone making $50K with a $25K deduction works out to a 10% tax. Same rate on a person making $200k works out to an 18% tax. That’s fair.

A family making low 6 figures paying a single digit tax rate and my family paying >25% is not equitable. Nor is an ultra high earner sheltering income via loopholes. We should all be contributing more evenly.

Also, a flat tax gets rid of all deductions, write offs etc. it’s simply a flat tax.

 

[scotchtiger]

Also, a flat tax gets rid of all deductions, write offs etc. it’s simply a flat tax.

Depends on the proposed structure. Flat tax just means a flat rate. The specific policy design would determine treatment of deductions.

 

[fatpiggy]

Depends on the proposed structure. Flat tax just means a flat rate. The specific policy design would determine treatment of deductions.

Fair enough. The Flat Tax proposals I have read get rid of write offs and deductions. If you make $100k and the rate is 10%, the you pay $10k

But yes there could be many different proposals.

 

[moradatiger70]

Something I hadn't thought of. LMBO

Getting ready to go have dinner with an extreme right-wing republican. Should be an interesting dinner conversation.

Uploaded to You Tube.

Dinner

 

[nytigerfan]

For people that were actually slaves, yes.

For people who just have a certain skin color? No

OK. We will grant trump reparations 200 years from now.

 

[BlueRidgedf]

Just go ahead and declare Trump King of the universe!!!!!!!

 

[SDTiger9]

He enjoys a 50% lead in the polls. It’s possible you hang around the other 50% and that’s fine.

But a lot of us don’t think what’s going on in our country is ok.

Whether you like Trump or not, I think a large majority would agree that the way he has been treated is wrong. I agree that this is not the same as “all”.

As Christmas has Santa Claus, Festivus has Donald Trump.

Rightfully so, the American people have a lot to be pissed off at and Trump is the Airing of Grievances candidate. People aren’t polling for Trump. They are polling for🖕🏼 Grievance candidate.

Trump had zero shot before and today if it weren’t for DC being a complete shitshow for 20+ years. And, to make matters worse, the MSM Trump milking machine MSNBC only raises his profile by sucking on face 24/7. MSNBC IS the greatest Trump supporter there is. Quite hilarious and sad at the same time.

 

[fatpiggy]

As Christmas has Santa Claus, Festivus has Donald Trump.

Rightfully so, the American people have a lot to be pissed off at and Trump is the Airing of Grievances candidate. People aren’t polling for Trump. They are polling for🖕🏼 Grievance candidate.

Trump had zero shot before and today if it weren’t for DC being a complete shitshow for 20+ years. And, to make matters worse, the MSM Trump milking machine MSNBC only raises his profile by sucking on face 24/7. MSNBC IS the greatest Trump supporter there is. Quite hilarious and sad at the same time.

I think Trump is the reason a lot of people have grievances.

We are supposed to be a government of We The People. He won the election over Hillary fair and square but he was hamstrung by the government itself when it was his turn to govern. Love him or hate him our government should be designed so that whoever wins the election gets their fair shot to govern. That was never given to Trump.

Do we really have a country if those elected are being sabotaged by the government itself? Are those people really represented if the person they elected is not allowed to govern?

Trump was being illegally spied upon and sabotaged the day he declared his intention to run for president and it has continued to this day.

Personally, I think Trump is kind of an asshole, a little narcissistic and has plenty of faults. That being said, he loves this country, and he won the election and never was given his chance to govern. That's not what this country represents and I think that is why you see him getting the support he has.

Give him his chance to govern uninterrupted and then send him on his merry way. But the bullshit has to stop. We The People are not being represented and you are seeing an attempt to take that back.

 

[fatpiggy]

OK. We will grant trump reparations 200 years from now.

Except for orange people. I think orange people should get reparations.

 

[fatpiggy]

Jim Jordan throws his hat in the ring for House Speaker

 

[nytigerfan]

I think Trump is the reason a lot of people have grievances.

We are supposed to be a government of We The People. He won the election over Hillary fair and square but he was hamstrung by the government itself when it was his turn to govern. Love him or hate him our government should be designed so that whoever wins the election gets their fair shot to govern. That was never given to Trump.

Do we really have a country if those elected are being sabotaged by the government itself? Are those people really represented if the person they elected is not allowed to govern?

Trump was being illegally spied upon and sabotaged the day he declared his intention to run for president and it has continued to this day.

Personally, I think Trump is kind of an asshole, a little narcissistic and has plenty of faults. That being said, he loves this country, and he won the election and never was given his chance to govern. That's not what this country represents and I think that is why you see him getting the support he has.

Give him his chance to govern uninterrupted and then send him on his merry way. But the bullshit has to stop. We The People are not being represented and you are seeing an attempt to take that back.

Your problem is that you think this is somehow unique to trump.

trump would never had been President if james comey had not announced an investigation into Hillary two weeks before the election. (election interference!)

trump is very smart in how he always plays the victim. He has always used the strategy, "if you repeat it enough times people will start to believe it." See yourself as a specific example.

Every president in modern times has been investigated relentlessly by the other party. See Biden right now. The GOP's own witnesses in the impeachment inquiry last week said they did not think Biden committed an impeachable offense in the hearing. And yet, the impeachment will carry on.

 

[nytigerfan]

Jim Jordan throws his hat in the ring for House Speaker

View embedded media

 

[fatpiggy]

They may have been investigated by the other party, but not by using the full force of the Government. There is a difference betweem the Democratic party investigating the Republican party, and vice versa, and the FBI and CIA using the powers of the government to do the "investigating". It wasn't investigating when FISA warrants were falsified. That is called lying and spying. An investigation is done legally with proper pretenses which did not occur with Trump. The FBI had their "insurance policy". 51 intelligence agents (government employees) lied directly to the American people with the sole intention of helping Biden and the Democrat Party, yet you are OK with that? Some of us are not. Washington DC needs to change.

The last time something similar happened with Watergate people were held accountable. Not the case with Trump.

 

[SDTiger9]

I think Trump is the reason a lot of people have grievances.

We are supposed to be a government of We The People. He won the election over Hillary fair and square but he was hamstrung by the government itself when it was his turn to govern. Love him or hate him our government should be designed so that whoever wins the election gets their fair shot to govern. That was never given to Trump.

Do we really have a country if those elected are being sabotaged by the government itself? Are those people really represented if the person they elected is not allowed to govern?

Trump was being illegally spied upon and sabotaged the day he declared his intention to run for president and it has continued to this day.

Personally, I think Trump is kind of an asshole, a little narcissistic and has plenty of faults. That being said, he loves this country, and he won the election and never was given his chance to govern. That's not what this country represents and I think that is why you see him getting the support he has.

Give him his chance to govern uninterrupted and then send him on his merry way. But the bullshit has to stop. We The People are not being represented and you are seeing an attempt to take that back.

Trump won….. because DC thought no outsider could ever win. Combo of the Apprentice, social media, DC long term bullshit and Hillary bashing is because he won.

The guy was a Democrat. And he’s been playing a Pub for the wins.

Agreed, the surveillance on him is complete BS. But a little narcissistic? Come on man, he’s 100% pure blood.

At some point, legit election failures would have to bubble up. It’s failed time and time again. Calling out election fraud like they did is simply juvenile and irresponsible. And many people are paying the price.

I do agree our MULTIPLE FORMATs and rules of voting need to stop. We are the most advanced society and we purposely apply restrictions on a fundamental right to validate a single vote. It’s garbage.

Drive a car, get a gun, apply for a loan….. we need authorized ID. I don’t want restrictions on anyone. I just want validation that 1 human can vote 1 time and we can do that EASILY. Anyone placing restrictions to pursue a validated single vote is a criminal IMO.

 

[fatpiggy]

Trump won….. because DC thought no outsider could ever win. Combo of the Apprentice, social media, DC long term bullshit and Hillary bashing is because he won.

The guy was a Democrat. And he’s been playing a Pub for the wins.

Agreed, the surveillance on him is complete BS. But a little narcissistic? Come on man, he’s 100% pure blood.

At some point, legit election failures would have to bubble up. It’s failed time and time again. Calling out election fraud like they did is simply juvenile and irresponsible. And many people are paying the price.

I do agree our MULTIPLE FORMATs and rules of voting need to stop. We are the most advanced society and we purposely apply restrictions on a fundamental right to validate a single vote. It’s garbage.

Drive a car, get a gun, apply for a loan….. we need authorized ID. I don’t want restrictions on anyone. I just want validation that 1 human can vote 1 time and we can do that EASILY. Anyone placing restrictions to pursue a validated single vote is a criminal IMO.

The elections were interfered with in multiple ways, not just voting. The Governemnet (FBI) colluded with big tech to censor speech related to republicans (see twitter files). 51 intelligence agents intentionally signed a fake letter with the sole purpse to help elect Biden. These sham prosections against Trump are elections interference.

I would agree that we should do whatever we can to 1) Make voting as easy as possible and 2) Make sure there is one vote per US citizen. I find it hard to believe that requiring an ID is onerous. Not long ago democrats (and maybe some uniparty pubs) were telling us we had to have vaccine passports to go into a grocery store. If you can require someone to go get a shot, you can require someone to go get an ID. Not that different imo.

 

[dpic73]

LOL

Give me a break you whiny, professional victim. Trump never should have been President in the first place if this is your excuse for his loss.

51 intelligence agents (government employees) lied directly to the American people with the sole intention of helping Biden and the Democrat Party, yet you are OK with that? Some of us are not. Washington DC needs to change.

The last time something similar happened with Watergate people were held accountable. Not the case with Trump.

Timeline of Donald Trump-Stormy Daniels hush money case

Donald Trump was indicted by the Manhattan District Attorney's office following an investigation related to hush money payments to a porn star who has said she had a sexual relationship with him, a law enforcement source said, becoming the first former U.S. president to face criminal charges.

www.reuters.com