One is not causing pain or suffering by refusing to forcibly redistribute wealth. That’s nuts.
We are a nation of laws, not of men. Our government should work that way.
@NickViar
If the president is allowed to have that power unchallenged than he would have any power.
Why not refuse to bring eminent domain challenges to court? He could sieze all of the nations Hilton Hotels and have them closed down to make way for Trump Hotels. While I would love $0 tax liability, I don’t want to have it through executive overreach.
That’s why even Harvard disagreed with BHO’s reasons for non enforcement.
1 Like
That’s fine. I believe I said it would be fine and correct to call that an unconstitutional act, but it would not be tyrannical.
Give a couple of examples then and let us see what you consider tyranny.
The income tax itself. Laws punishing possession and commerce even on the property of one involved. Not allowing one political unit to leave others(e.g., if the rest of the EU had bombed England into remaining in the EU, I think that would be tyrannical).
I can agree with that. It would be illegal and unconstitutional, but that would not make it tyrannical.
By cutting the lifeblood to govt programs and most likely the paychecks of govt employees you inevitably cause pain and suffering. Whether or not that’s the intent doesn’t really matter. Reality >>>> Intent.
Also trying to differentiate between tyrant and unconstitutional in this regard is a distinction without a difference.
1 Like
To be fair, that goes for a goodly number of PWI threads these days.
3 Likes
Trump’s tax plan looks pretty sweet from what I’ve briefly read. I still think he needs to explain where and how much spending he will cut. Just saying we’ll achieve 3% growth (which would be hyuggggge for the economy and the debt) and we’ll cut fraud waste and abuse to cover the lost revenue doesn’t cut it.
1 Like
Here’s the issue I’m having. For him to know ahead of time that we’ll cover the lost revenue by eliminating fraud waste and abuse, he has to already know how much is lost via fraud waste and abuse. Knowing how much means it’s already pinned down where fraud waste and abuse are happening.
If he already knows where it’s happening (hyuge IF), why in gods name isn’t he stopping it already?
My guess is a) he doesn’t know and b) the amount won’t even dent the reduction in tax revenue. It was a soundbite for the electorate. There’s fraud waste and abuse to be found, but nothing near what’s necessary to counter the revenue reduction.
1 Like
I like the idea of a tax cut but if they take out all the deductions and write offs is it really a tax cut?? For example I write off millage and deprection big write offs for me if those go away and others where is the benifit… However Im small biz owner not giant corp so maybe Im getting shaft as usual…Im sure my accountant will figure it out thats what he gets paid for
They’re leaving in the mortgage and charitable deductions, which are two of the big ones most of us benefit from.
Tax on pass-through income from a business is supposed to drop to 15% so you may not get the write-off’s, but your statutory rate is slashed in half up front. (depending on your revenue of course)
I haven’t seen many details, though. I’m sure more will come out in the next few days.
I guess I need to find a charity I like wink wink ahhh comprende
I have no idea what you mean 
The Derek Zoolander school for kids that cant read too good of course
2 Likes
Did they ever increase the size of the building? The old one looked like it was made for ants.
4 Likes
Both sides are big fans of executive authority when their guy is in power. It would be nice if Congress took power back from the Executive and the Judiciary. However Democrats don’t want to and Republicans don’t have the balls.