SHOCK... Dems favoring unions again????

NigelTufnel said:
How is it unconstitutional?

And I think the exemption is for 2 years, not through 2018.
Click to expand...
Really? How is it unconstitutional to say that everyone that has a insurance plan has to pay taxes on it EXCEPT those that gained it through collective barganing. Why would it be unconstitutional to levy a tax on one group while exempting a similarly situated group. Equal protection? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller? Anyone?
 
Socrtease said:
Really? How is it unconstitutional to say that everyone that has a insurance plan has to pay taxes on it EXCEPT those that gained it through collective barganing. Why would it be unconstitutional to levy a tax on one group while exempting a similarly situated group. Equal protection? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller? Anyone?
Click to expand...


Seriously? How is it constitutional for one group (workers) to pay 30% income tax while another (investors) pay 15% income tax? How is it constitutional for one group (parents) to get a tax credit while another group (non-parents) do not? How is it constitutional for one group (home owners) to get a tax credit while another group (non-home owners) do not? How is it constitutional for one type organization (religious groups) to get tax exemptions and another (non-religious group) not to? Christ, how is it constitutional to tax people earning different incomes at different rates? How is it even constitutional to tax people with "Cadillac Plans" in the first instance while not taxing people with other types of plans?

And I'm just going off the top of my head, I'm sure I could come up with all sorts of tax exemptions that favor one group over another. Respectfully, your simple analysis is exactly that, simple.
 
NigelTufnel said:
Seriously? How is it constitutional for one group (workers) to pay 30% income tax while another (investors) pay 15% income tax? How is it constitutional for one group (parents) to get a tax credit while another group (non-parents) do not? How is it constitutional for one group (home owners) to get a tax credit while another group (non-home owners) do not? How is it constitutional for one type organization (religious groups) to get tax exemptions and another (non-religious group) not to? Christ, how is it constitutional to tax people earning different incomes at different rates? How is it even constitutional to tax people with "Cadillac Plans" in the first instance while not taxing people with other types of plans?

And I'm just going off the top of my head, I'm sure I could come up with all sorts of tax exemptions that favor one group over another. Respectfully, your simple analysis is exactly that, simple.
Click to expand...


1) Everyone pays according to the same tax bracket structure for income

2) Everyone pays according to the same tax structure on capital gains

3) Everyone pays according to the same tax structure on dividends

Bottom line... the SAME rules apply for everyone. If someone makes an extra dollar that bumps to the next highest bracket, they get charged on that dollar the exact same as everyone else. Also... while different forms of income are indeed taxed differently, the same rules apply to every individual on how each form is taxed.

The reason I asked Soc for his opinion is because in this case, the same rules DO NOT apply.
 
Superfreak said:
1) Everyone pays according to the same tax bracket structure for income

2) Everyone pays according to the same tax structure on capital gains

3) Everyone pays according to the same tax structure on dividends

Bottom line... the SAME rules apply for everyone. If someone makes an extra dollar that bumps to the next highest bracket, they get charged on that dollar the exact same as everyone else.

The reason I asked Soc for his opinion is because in this case, the same rules DO NOT apply.
Click to expand...


I'm just telling you that Soc's "analysis" isn't exactly . . . exhaustive. There are all sorts of winners and losers under the tax code and people are treated differently based on all sorts of things. That doesn't render the laws unconstitutional.
 
NigelTufnel said:
I'm just telling you that Soc's "analysis" isn't exactly . . . exhaustive. There are all sorts of winners and losers under the tax code and people are treated differently based on all sorts of things. That doesn't render the laws unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

Provide an example where they are treated differently, then we can discuss.

Your example above was not an example of people being treated differently.
 
Superfreak said:
Provide an example where they are treated differently, then we can discuss.

Your example above was not an example of people being treated differently.
Click to expand...


Dude, income earners are treated differently. Your line-drawing doesn't change that. Labor income is treated differently from capital gains income. People with dependent children are treated differently form people without dependent children. People with mortgage interest are treated differently form people without mortgage interest. People with student loan interest are treated differently from people without student loan interest. Etc . . .

And I can line-draw too to get the result I want. All people who get insurance under a collective bargaining agreement are treated the same and all that do not get insurance under a collective bargaining agreement are treated the same.
 
NigelTufnel said:
Dude, income earners are treated differently. Your line-drawing doesn't change that. Labor income is treated differently from capital gains income. People with dependent children are treated differently form people without dependent children. People with mortgage interest are treated differently form people without mortgage interest. People with student loan interest are treated differently from people without student loan interest. Etc . . .

And I can line-draw too to get the result I want. All people who get insurance under a collective bargaining agreement are treated the same and all that do not get insurance under a collective bargaining agreement are treated the same.
Click to expand...

Dung... AGAIN....

1) Individuals are ALL treated the same with regards to how their various income sources are taxed. EVERYONE has their labor income taxed according to the same rules. Everyone has their capital gains taxed according to the same rules. Everyone has their dividend income taxed according to the same rules.

2) To equate the current union exemption to 'labor' income would be to say... non-union members pay income taxes on their wages and union members do not have to pay any income taxes on their wages.


All people who get insurance under a collective bargaining agreement are treated the same and all that do not get insurance under a collective bargaining agreement are treated the same.
Click to expand...

LMAO... yes but notice... ALL PEOPLE are NOT treated the same. Of course the sub-groups are treated the same as others in their sub-groups. But the group as a whole is NOT treated the same. Hence... the violation of equal protection under the law.
 
I don't really have the energy to debate this with you. Suffice it to say that I disagree as to its constitutionality. On the merits, I think it's a pretty shitty idea to start with, but not all shitty ideas are unconstitutional.
 
And by the way, I went to a conservative legal blog that I read on occasion to see if they had commented on it. They didn't, but they did provide some analysis of the INTERPOL brouhaha from not too long ago on which you and I disagreed. You should check it out:

http://volokh.com/
 
NigelTufnel said:
I don't really have the energy to debate this with you. Suffice it to say that I disagree as to its constitutionality. On the merits, I think it's a pretty shitty idea to start with, but not all shitty ideas are unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

Well, we agree then that it is a shitty idea.

As for the Constitutionality... I am willing to leave that up to the courts to decide.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top