• Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    Yesterday, 09:27 AM
    The world was dumb a long time ago. Episodes involving the perfectly good word "niggardly" go back decades. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversies_about_the_word_niggardly
    13 replies | 220 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    01-19-2022, 01:42 PM
    Whether he signs it or not is immaterial -- some oral contracts are enforceable. The point was that the Constitution doesn't protect the right to contract in all cases. It should have been obvious from the context that I was referring to federal income tax law, not North Carolina law on custodial trusts. Your suggestion that taxation is a matter of contract (a real one, not the philosophical notion of a social contract) is a 100% loser.
    222 replies | 8549 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    01-18-2022, 03:52 PM
    SCOTUS has held otherwise.
    13 replies | 1060 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    01-15-2022, 10:15 AM
    And what gives them the authority to require that you register and penalize you if you don't?
    222 replies | 8549 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    01-15-2022, 10:13 AM
    What's so simple that it's beyond your comprehension is that if none of the parties to a lawsuit asks the court to rule on a constitutional issue it's not the court's job to inject one into the case. Nope. For example, hiring a hit man to kill someone is an illegal act that the Constitution doesn't protect. Similarly, entering into a usurious loan agreement or some other illegal agreement can result in penalties to the lender or render the contract unenforceable. 'Cause Sonny would like to smarten up credulous suckers parroting the same tired, brain-dead arguments that have no basis in law and that have a 100% loss record in court. But for some folks who have drunk way too much tax-protester kool aid it's like trying to teach calculus to a banana slug.
    222 replies | 8549 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    01-14-2022, 02:58 PM
    I suggest you read the per curiam opinion in the case involving the OSHA regulation. It was based solely upon the language of the statute establishing OSHA and whether it authorized the agency to promulgate the mandate. It was in no way based on the notion that Congress had no authority to enact the statute in the first place. See https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/21a244_hgci.pdf This should be blatantly obvious when you consider that the Court upheld the mandate in the Medicare/Medicaid case, where it implicitly accepted the constitutionality of those programs (I suspect you believe they are unconstitutional as well). Hall of Fame umpire Bill Klem once took a bit too long to make a call on a pitch. When the batter asked if it was a ball or strike, Klem replied, "It ain't nothin' until I call it." In the same way, a statute isn't unconstitutional until the Court says it is. That's how the law in the real world works. Guess again. If you're drafted (assuming the draft were ever reinstated) or called to jury duty or supoenaed in federal court or had your property confiscated because you ignored a federal court judgment against you because you didn't consent to the court's jurisdiction over you you'd find out soon enough whether the feds had authority.
    222 replies | 8549 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    01-13-2022, 08:20 PM
    You miss the point. The constitutionality of the statutes wasn't raised by the plaintiffs, so unless you're one of those who thinks activist judges should go ahead and rule on issues that aren't before them, the Court was correct to not address that issue.
    222 replies | 8549 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    01-13-2022, 03:07 PM
    It wasn't. The issue was whether the existing statutes authorized the administrative agencies to promulgate the regulations requiring vaccination. Nobody claimed the statutes were unconstitutional or that Congress couldn't enact a law explicitly requiring vaccinations.
    222 replies | 8549 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    01-11-2022, 02:16 PM
    Interrupting someone in the middle of a statement hinders communication. Paul isn't the only congressman who does it -- they all love to posture before the cameras by constantly interrupting witnesses whose positions they disagree with. If anything was a monologue it was Paul's opening statement that ran almost 2 minutes. And before the Fauci haters and anti-vaxxers get their panties all in a wad, my point isn't to defend him. I just dislike all politicians regardless of party and hate it when they are more interested in their own voice than that of the witness.
    33 replies | 1228 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    01-03-2022, 09:21 AM
    One of the greatest to ever play the 5-string. RIP, J. D.
    5842 replies | 420527 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    01-02-2022, 09:50 AM
    How has she reduced the government pot? The government got $100K in services for which it paid $100K. It broke even. It then gets $20K in taxes, just like it does with respect to a private sector worker.
    15 replies | 886 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    12-27-2021, 04:52 PM
    The author makes several historical errors regarding the income tax. 1. States didn't start having income taxes only in the 1840's. Seven of the original 13 states had a form of income tax even before the Constitution was ratified. 2. The 16th Amendment didn't authorize the income tax; Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution did, and it was the legal basis of the Civil War era income tax. The amendment overturned the result in the Pollock case, which had held that a tax on investment income (but not a tax on other types of income such as wages) had to be apportioned among the state by population. The amendment just eliminated any apportionment requirement. 3. While the 16th Amendment was ratified during the first year of the Wilson administration, it was the Republican Taft administration that asked Congress to approve the amendment and send it to the states for ratification. 4. The original 1913 tax act did indeed have a withholding provision, but it only lasted a few years before being reintroduced in 1943.
    1 replies | 416 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    12-26-2021, 10:49 AM
    Not really. If Warren or any other federal employee has other types of income (e.g., interest, dividends, book royalties, speaking fees, etc.) the tax paid on such income isn't attributable to the salary paid. I suspect Warren's income from other sources is larger than her salary. If a federal employee has deductions that are large enough he or she might not pay any income tax on salary. It would be a very strange employment arrangement to lower someone's salary because of non-empoyment-related activity. The bottom line is that with respect to the federal income tax a federal employee is in the same economic situation as a worker in the private sector -- each has less take-home money. Calling it a reduction in salary instead of a tax is just a rhetorical device that could be construed as a claim that government employees get preferential treatment when it comes to the federal income tax.* Moreover, the theory that a government employee doesn't pay federal income tax is at odds with the notion (shrilly espoused by many on this site) that taxation is theft. After all, if the tax paid by such an employee is merely a reduction in salary then taxing it can't be theft because the employee voluntarily entered into the employment arrangement. * This isn't to say that government employees (especially Congressmen) don't get preferential treatment in other areas. There is merit to the argument that Congress should never pass a generally-applicable law that its members and their staff aren't also subject to.
    15 replies | 886 view(s)
No More Results
About Sonny Tufts

Basic Information

Profile Sidebar Configuration

Profile Sidebar Configuration

Activist Reputation (Self-Rated):
1

Signature


We have long had death and taxes as the two standards of inevitability. But there are those who believe that death is the preferable of the two. "At least," as one man said, "there's one advantage about death; it doesn't get worse every time Congress meets."
Erwin N. Griswold

Taxes: Of life's two certainties, the only one for which you can get an automatic extension.
Anonymous

Statistics


Total Posts
Total Posts
2,309
Posts Per Day
0.65
General Information
Last Activity
Yesterday 08:36 PM
Join Date
04-25-2012
Referrals
0

01-26-2021


04-06-2018


03-17-2018


03-08-2018


08-03-2017

  • 10:57 AM - Hidden

12-15-2016


No results to display...
Page 1 of 68 1231151 ... LastLast

01-21-2022


01-19-2022


01-15-2022


01-14-2022


01-13-2022


01-11-2022


12-31-2021


12-20-2021


12-15-2021


12-14-2021



Page 1 of 68 1231151 ... LastLast