tvc184

You could have cut that down to, the problem is spending. Local, county, state or federal or even school districts, once they decide to spend the money, they are going to get it. The means of taxing will make the people that bear the biggest burden or maybe any burden. No matter how it is shuffled around, we are still going to pay.

So did they raise taxes and disguise it as a convenience?

Yep. My property taxes went down $500 a month!! My annual vehicle registration is now $600 a year, my gasoline costs $250 more per month and my grocery bill after the new sales tax is costing me $400 more monthly….. but I am saving $500 a month on property tax!

It is certainly a more fair way but the sound of income tax is abhorrent to most people so the people of Texas voted in a constitutional amendment that bans income tax.

I have said that for years in another forum and maybe a time or two in this one. An across-the-board consumption tax is a terrible idea for people living paycheck to paycheck and an awesome idea for people who make anything at all more than what they need.

The state has absolute control over local taxes. Local entities can only do what the state allows them to do.

There are two issues in taxes. 1. How much is the state going to take to cover their expenses? 2. Where is it going to come from. Taxes can be from income tax, sales tax, consumption tax, property tax, etc. It will be paid one way or the other or a combination, which is how it is done. Texas can’t use income tax so they have to go elsewhere. They could for example completely eliminate property taxes but get ready for gasoline to go up $1.35 a gallon or sales tax to go up to 30% or…..

Yep. Obviously wearing a life jacket if for unforeseen emergency situations. It isn’t intended a jump in the river at your own choosing for a leisurely swim.

Yeah, I follow your attempt at logic. The 13, 14 and 15 amendments were about slavery. Millions of people immigrated to this country as a beacon of freedom as in the mass of immigrants at Ellis Island and other immigrant processing locations. They were not citizens when they arrived and would have come anyway for a chance at prosperity. Are you suggesting that the world trying to beat a path to America was because their future children might have citizenship? Finally and most importantly, Article I of the Constitution give only Congress the complete authority to regulate immigration and naturalization (citizenship). There was no need for an amendment for birthright citizenship. They could have simply given citizenship to anyone at any time by legislation. They didn’t need the 13 Amendment. By making it an amendment, it could not be taken away from former slaves by future legislation. If the 13 Amendment never existed, Congress could still grant citizenship to anyone it wishes. There was never a need to an amendment to grant citizenship to anyone. The 13, like the 14 and 15, was about correcting the wrongs of slavery, not an incentive to try and lure people to this country…. while people were beating on the door to get in.

I believe that is revisionist history. The 13th, 14th and 15th amendments were all passed within 4 years after the Civil War with the intent to grant the freedom from slavery, citizenship and the right to vote for former slaves. I don’t think they randomly and right in the middle of the amendments, tossed in a citizenship right to unknown people who weren’t here yet. In fact immigration and the fleeing to the US was done without any guarantee of citizenship. Those three amendments were about righting the wrongs from slavery, not luring people to America.

I said that I don’t agree with it. The intent was to free slaves. it has already been decided however. If a person is born on US soil, he/she/they is a citizen I really don’t think the Supreme Court will grant certiorari.

Probably the saddest day of my career was when we pulled up two drowned Vietnamese children (maybe 3 and 5 years old) on Pleasure Island where one was in distress and the older one went to help. When found several hours later, they were holding on to each other.

All Trump has to do is change the Fourteenth Amendment. As the Navy Captain said in the movie G I Jane while talking to a senator who was complaining about people taking photos from a public highway….. he would gladly stop them from taking photos… if she could just, “Trim a little fat off the Constitution”. I think that birthright citizenship is wrong, but….. it’s in the Constitution. I don’t think the way it has developed is likely the way it was intended but….. it’s in the Constitution.

Yes. DTC thinks Paxton is a crook and should be removed and when the Republicans did just that in an overwhelming vote, apparently DTC has an issue with it. You would think the thread title would be, Republicans Do The Right Thing. But not so with DTC…..

You have shown to be completely nonsensical. You are adding to the biggest straw man thread of all time.

That is a quandary. Surely Lumberton has more jobs than DFW, Houston, Austin and SA combined. I am sure that if 1,000 people want to leave NYC, there has to be jobs waiting on them in Lumberton. This thread is in the running for the straw man of all time.

I believe that all states probably have a law requiring it to be put at auction. They seize the property, sell it at auction, pay off any liens/mortgages, take what they are owed and the rest goes back to the owner.

Yeah, I was thinking 5-15 and maybe other issues.. you can’t sell sno-cones and coach! If 16 - 5 with a playoff appearance? Can you please schedule to sell your cones between classes and on weekends?

Legal. I saw a lawyer on YouTube, saying that, if I remember correctly, at least 12 states had such a law.

Also a possibility from this case…. This might have huge implications on future federal agencies’ authority including in the Second Amendment cases. With what appears to be a possible showdown between the ATF’s making rules authority and another case pending on the Chevron deference rule, this case might pave the way to keep federal agencies from going outside of ambiguous laws.

I forgot to mention, in the ruling written by Chief Justice Roberts, he said, “The taxpayer must render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, but no more”. That might be one of the great quotes from a Supreme Court decision for all time.

In yet another unanimous ruling, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of a 94 year old woman. The woman owned or had equity in a condo/apartment and was behind on taxes. The county in Minnesota eventually seized the property and sold it at auction. That was not the issue though. In most states (likely all), property can be seized for taxes. Then after property is seized and sold, the government gets to keep the taxes owed but the rest (after liens are paid) is supposed to be returned to the owner. For example: A person has a $200,000 home. He is behind $10,000 in taxes and legal fees. The guy still owed $50,000 on the mortgage. So the government seized the property and sells it at auction for $175,000. They keep $10,000 for the taxes and fees owed and $50,000 will go to pay off the mortgage. That still leaves $115,000 after everyone has been paid off. That is supposed to be given to the owner. Apparently in some states (such as this MN case, instead of returning the ballance to the rightful owner, the county (or state) gets to keep it. It is like civil asset forfeiture on steroids. The county got back what they were owed in taxes and fees however they kept the rest of it. You might think, surely that can’t be legal… but it was… until today. Tyler v. Hennepin County, MN [Hidden Content]

The best part of the case might be Chuck Schumer calling this a MAGA decision. The ruling was 9-0. Kagan, Sotomayor and Brown all sided with the claimed conservatives. Alito wrote the opinion however Kavanaugh wrote a concurring opinion and the three very liberal women signed off on that also. Is there really any doubt that no matter what is said by or appears to be supported by the Republicans, conservatives, Trump or anything else from that side of the aisle, is automatically racist, MAGA, white supremacy or their other automated responses? It is like spinning the wheel to see what the official response is going to be. Let’s see, today DeSantis said blah blah. Our official Democrat response is…. (Wheel spins and lands on): Transphobic! Is there anyone that doesn’t see Sotomayor, Kagan and Brown as very liberal? Yet when they agree with the conservative side, it is ignored as if they didn’t exist. Nope, it was a MAGA decision! [Hidden Content]

Yes. I have no issue with her being released although it sure seemed like a purely political move. That isn’t her fault. Let’s say that I was famous and imprisoned in a foreign country. If the American government got me released, I surely would not reject it and say, “They got me out for politics so I will choose to remain in prison”. Uhhhh…. no. That’s why I said this thread isn’t about her. It’s the seemingly disbelief on the coach’s part that this wasn’t some landmark historical event. It seems kind of like a cutoff from the views and reality of the general public. The biggest news of Griner’s return was her coach’s thoughts on her return.

The BB does their usual parody… because the Republicans might go along with Biden instead of holding the line. So BB is criticizing the Republicans because they might give in to the Democrat demands. And the left thinks that is a criticism of the Republicans. It is… but only if they cave to the progressives. For those that can’t decipher the intent, it is a comedic way of saying, don’t be stupid and go along with the Biden/Democrat agenda.