Me, the Democrat and my boyfriend, the Republican

[Dancing Fire]

Date: 6/11/2008 12:50:09 AM
Author: thing2of2

Date: 6/11/2008 12:35:32 AM
Author: diamondfan
Look, this is a great country. And many countries are terrible to live in, especially for women. I totally get why people would want to come here. And it is NOT that simple to come here legally, and post 9/11 it is even tougher. Of course, I do not want the criminals and terrorists from other countries here. I am talking only of good decent hard working people, who, btw, often take the jobs that no American would deign to take. It is hard to say I want money diverted to non US citizens from US citizens, but again, if money were spent well and we allowed workers in who were good people, we could let them work legally and take some money in taxes. I feel the US is a melting pot, and there are good people wanting to come here for a better chance. I doubt we will ever be able to truly stop illegal immigration, so why not have some way of granting those decent people the ability to live here and make it a win win situation?

I totally agree with you, diamondfan! I really can't stand it when people bitch and moan about illegal immigrants. I feel like they're just a scapegoat for many people for all of the problems the US is facing right now.

i have no problem if they go through the legal system. i had to wait until i was 18 yrs old to apply, then i had to answer lots of Q's about U.S history in the office of INS before i got my citizenship. these illegals wants a free pass w/o going through the legal system

that's a bunch of bull

LUNCH TIME!!

 

[MoonWater]

Count me as another person that doesn''t believe we should be paying income taxes. However, I can admit that I came to this belief after being completely convinced by the propaganda in this film:

http://www.freedomtofascism.com/

 

[diamondfan]

I do not know why you think it is such a choice for immigrants, DF. Typically they are not of means and the channels, due to our government and the post 9/11 world, makes it virtually impossible. And large sums of money and connections are usually involved. I am sure if these people COULD, they would. That is not an option for most of them.

 

[Dancing Fire]

Date: 6/11/2008 6:20:57 PM
Author: diamondfan
I do not know why you think it is such a choice for immigrants, DF. Typically they are not of means and the channels, due to our government and the post 9/11 world, makes it virtually impossible. And large sums of money and connections are usually involved. I am sure if these people COULD, they would. That is not an option for most of them.

maybe cuz i had to do everything by the book to become a U.S. citizen. these illegals just want to come in through the back door.

 

[diamondfan]

I do not want to belabor or argue the point but to me you cannot know that "those illegals" only want to come in the back door. I know many people from years past in L.A. who would have welcomed the opportunity to come here legally, had they the money for lawyers etc. It is simply not that easy. You cannot just present yourself at the border and say Hi, make me a citizen. Post 9/11 the immigration issues are complex. I think you are oversimplifying a very broad issue. I know many decent people who would love to come here, would be willing to work hard and pay taxes, but they do not know any immigration lawyers and if they had the money it cost to come over they would not be in the dire straights they are in. I am sure they would all be thrilled to learn facts about the US and take the oath of citizenship but it just ain''t that easy.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Some of the imigration lawyers have very low morals, as far as I am concerned. I know a science teacher from the Phillipines who had to pay many thousands of dollars to some attorney in NJ to help her through the legal immigration route. These people need to be able to fill out applications to apply for citizenship!!! I agree with Diamondfan that it would be sooo much better for them to become legal and pay their share of taxes, etc. However, I would add the requirement that they''d have to learn a certain amount of English to become citizens. We need to assimilate people into our culture and not have them be totally isolated.

 

[Dancing Fire]

Date: 6/12/2008 12:19:11 AM
Author: diamondseeker2006
Some of the imigration lawyers have very low morals, as far as I am concerned. I know a science teacher from the Phillipines who had to pay many thousands of dollars to some attorney in NJ to help her through the legal immigration route. These people need to be able to fill out applications to apply for citizenship!!! I agree with Diamondfan that it would be sooo much better for them to become legal and pay their share of taxes, etc. However, I would add the requirement that they'd have to learn a certain amount of English to become citizens. We need to assimilate people into our culture and not have them be totally isolated.

yeah....she ask me like 30 Q's .

thought she was gonna ask me to sing "The Star Spangled Banner" to get my citizenship.

 

[diamondfan]

There are certainly sleazy lawyers looking to take advantage of immigrants. Nothing shocks me there. I have heard stories of people paying thousands and getting misled or outright screwed over.

And I do feel they should learn English, I am not saying they should lose their own language or culture or heritage, but if they are coming here, I feel it is not unreasonable to ask they learn English so that their adjustment and transition are easier. If we went to France or Germany they would expect the same even though English is a universally spoken tongue and many non English speaking countries teach it in their schools.

I just feel a lot of compassion towards decent hard working people who truly have so little in their homeland and I would hate to feel we cannot find some way to get those people here legally and without abusing vulnerable people in the process.

 

[ksinger]

Date: 6/10/2008 5:45:13 AM
Author: Delster

Date: 6/9/2008 1:12:58 PM
Author: NewEnglandLady
I forgot to add that those policies which are enacted by the states should not come from taxes that are unconstitutional like the income tax...whether it is state or federal.

Thanks for explaining, this is really interesting. I didn''t know income tax was unconstitutional in the States. You do have social welfare-ish tax though right? I remember being taxed when I worked in the States and I''m sure I was told it was a social welfare type tax. Could that money could go to a public healthcare system?

(Obviously I could be way wrong about that tax and please educate me if I am!

)

ETA - never mind, I just read the rest of the thread. My bad. I will gobble humble pie for not reading on before replying. Leaving my original (ignorant!) post up there as I''m still curious about those taxes I paid on my paycheck in the States...

This is a very enjoyable debate and a very unusual one to someone looking through the filter of living in a high income tax state. We have a huge constitutional referendum about a new EU treaty coming up on Thursday and one of they key issues the ''No'' campaign is actually focusing on is that the new treaty may give the EU the right to level Europe-wide taxes. Interesting stuff for sure.

For those who are truly interested, I include a bit excerpted from Wikipedia, and a link to the entire piece. The entry for "Tax protester constitutional arguments" is listed at Wikipedia as: Tax protester constitutional arguments has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria.

This is NOT a fluffy entry there, and there is more info there than a person could plough through in a day, all nicely cited and linked, usually to the court cases. There has never been one case against the constitutionality of the 16th amendment, that has not been deemed legally frivolous, without merit, or flat out fraudulent. To the courts for the last umpteen years, this has been utterly and completely settled.

"Many Appeals Courts have made blanket statements repudiating tax protester arguments. For example, see the Seventh Circuit case of United States v. Buckner:[44]
For the record, we note that the following beliefs, which are stock arguments of the tax protester movement, have not been, nor ever will be, considered "objectively reasonable" in this circuit:
(1) the belief that the Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution was improperly ratified and therefore never came into being;
(2) the belief that the Sixteenth Amendment is unconstitutional generally;
(3) the belief that the income tax violates the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment;
(4) the belief that the tax laws are unconstitutional;
(5) the belief that wages are not income and therefore are not subject to federal income tax laws;
(6) the belief that filing a tax return violates the privilege against self-incrimination; and
(7) the belief that Federal Reserve Notes do not constitute cash or income."

 

[Delster]

Hi Karen, interesting link and sadly I don't have time to read it all today (actually becuase I have an enormous amount of reading on Irish constitutional law to plough through today, and on the topic of healthcare being a non-justiciable issue at that, but that's a whole other debate

).

So to my original question, is there anything in US constitutional law that prohibits the leveling of an income tax with a specific social welfare purpose, a portion of the proceeds of which could be directed to a public healthcare system, (a) at state level, and (b) at the federal level?

Based on your post above I'm guessing the answer is no? So then it must be political objections (of the kind that many people have thoughtfully explained in this thread) that have prevented the establishment of a free public health system?

By way of illustration, and to show where I'm coming from in terms of my experience of taxation, we have a Pay Related Social Insurance tax (which is partly paid by employers and partly by employees, and goes to social insurance; the public health system; and the national training fund) and a Pay As You Earn tax (which is paid entirely by employees, and goes to fund education; health care; the judicial system; the police; transport etc.). The base rate of tax is at 21% but most a sizeable proportion of people fall into the higher rate of tax on at least a portion of their income, and that is at 42%.

I'm not going to get into a debate on immigration, but the approach taken here is that no-one should have to pay for health care, irrespective of their status within the country. You don't need to be a citizen to avail of the public health system in Ireland, it is free to all.

 

[ksinger]

Date: 6/12/2008 7:20:32 AM
Author: Delster
Hi Karen, interesting link and sadly I don''t have time to read it all today (actually becuase I have an enormous amount of reading on Irish constitutional law to plough through today, and on the topic of healthcare being a non-justiciable issue at that, but that''s a whole other debate

).

So to my original question, is there anything in US constitutional law that prohibits the leveling of an income tax with a specific social welfare purpose, a portion of the proceeds of which could be directed to a public healthcare system, (a) at state level, and (b) at the federal level?

Based on your post above I''m guessing the answer is no? So then it must be political objections (of the kind that many people have thoughtfully explained in this thread) that have prevented the establishment of a free public health system?

By way of illustration, and to show where I''m coming from in terms of my experience of taxation, we have a Pay Related Social Insurance tax (which is partly paid by employers and partly by employees, and goes to social insurance; the public health system; and the national training fund) and a Pay As You Earn tax (which is paid entirely by employees, and goes to fund education; health care; the judicial system; the police; transport etc.). The base rate of tax is at 21% but most a sizeable proportion of people fall into the higher rate of tax on at least a portion of their income, and that is at 42%.

I''m not going to get into a debate on immigration, but the approach taken here is that no-one should have to pay for health care, irrespective of their status within the country. You don''t need to be a citizen to avail of the public health system in Ireland, it is free to all.

Well, I can''t speak with utter assurance on that because I''m not a constitutional lawyer. I''m sure we have some folks around here who could chime in. I DO know that we currently pay separate Medicare tax (at least it''s broken out on our paystubs, separately from Federal income taxes) - Medicare being a form of socialized medicine that we actually DO have in place, albeit only for the elderly.

And as far as I can see, yes the reason we don''t have socialized medicine is because 1) many believe that market competition is the best solution for just about everything, and 2) it has the word "socialized" in it, and that connotation is still very bad in this country. People don''t realize just how feared the socialist movement was in this country, even before the Russian revolution, which just poured gasoline on the fire that was already burning. Just as a bit of background, business leaders and people of influence (then, as now, pretty much the same folks) convinced government during the teens, that they would provide retirement and healthcare (the common people were starting to demand such, now that they''d seen child labor laws enacted, and pure food and drug act, mandated day and work week lengths, etc), for the the return of the suppression of the growth of the socialist movement in this country. A small price for the government that was staring down the barrel of footing the bill for all this stuff...

 

[miraclesrule]

It is true, we are a product of our environment. Unfortunately that environment also includes some strong negative connotations of the term "socialist" because as children we were taught that this is bad, bad, bad. USSR and the KGB was supposed to be the biggest threat to our survival...yeah, that turned out to be one big piece of fear based propaganda.

Fear based politics is nothing new...but it is the basis for the foundation of every closing society...even the USSR. My only fear is that it is now working on the American people and that I will live to see the end of America.

Well, that''s not my only fear...I also fear that me or my daughter will trip while I am walking her down the aisle next month.

 

[NewEnglandLady]

Hey, Delster! I''m not going to dive into the constitutionality too much, but basically Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution gives the federal goverment taxing power--clause 1 is the taxing and spending clause which states "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States". The interpretation of this clause was debated very early on in the Federalist papers where James Madison said that federal taxes under this clause would only go to the nation''s defense and regulating interstate and other taxing powers were given to the states under the 10th amendment, wheras Alexander Hamilton thought that the "general welfare" included agriculture and education. I believe there are currently 40-something or 50-something federal taxes, medicare, medicaid and other medical taxes included.

The health care issue is much larger than just constitutional issue, though it''s a public vs. private issue for two main reasons. 1.) A public health care system would cost hundreds of billions of dollars at a minimum and while our goverment currently spends a billion dollars a day, there is no way they could even think about universal health care without significantly reducing their current spending (isn''t going to happen) or increasing taxes (isn''t going to happen). 2.) The government isn''t known for being efficient and it is argued that a government-enabled health care system would cause the quality of health care to decrease: more forms, people losing interest in the field because of red tape, thus less qualified doctors, longer wait times, etc.

There are other issues at play as well--those who are for it feel that health insurance is a right, whereas people who are against it say that it is not a right and that people have the right to opt out of health insurance. I know there are some other arguments, I''m just too tired to think of them right now.

Anyway, that''s just a quick overview.

 

[Delster]

Such interesting, and thoughtful and considered reponses to my basic and ignorant questions - thank you ladies! This is a topic close to my heart and I may yet start a thread about the healthcare non-justiciability thing and pick all your brains - your reasoning is so much more considered than mine is just yet

And that''s an indictment on me for sure

Date: 6/12/2008 11:39:21 PM
Author: NewEnglandLady
Hey, Delster! I''m not going to dive into the constitutionality too much, but basically Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution gives the federal goverment taxing power--clause 1 is the taxing and spending clause which states ''The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States''. The interpretation of this clause was debated very early on in the Federalist papers where James Madison said that federal taxes under this clause would only go to the nation''s defense and regulating interstate and other taxing powers were given to the states under the 10th amendment, wheras Alexander Hamilton thought that the ''general welfare'' included agriculture and education. I believe there are currently 40-something or 50-something federal taxes, medicare, medicaid and other medical taxes included.

The health care issue is much larger than just constitutional issue, though it''s a public vs. private issue for two main reasons. 1.) A public health care system would cost hundreds of billions of dollars at a minimum and while our goverment currently spends a billion dollars a day, there is no way they could even think about universal health care without significantly reducing their current spending (isn''t going to happen) or increasing taxes (isn''t going to happen). 2.) The government isn''t known for being efficient and it is argued that a government-enabled health care system would cause the quality of health care to decrease: more forms, people losing interest in the field because of red tape, thus less qualified doctors, longer wait times, etc.

There are other issues at play as well--those who are for it feel that health insurance is a right, whereas people who are against it say that it is not a right and that people have the right to opt out of health insurance. I know there are some other arguments, I''m just too tired to think of them right now.

Anyway, that''s just a quick overview.

This is exactly the nub of all the dissatisfaction with public health care in Ireland, and why 50% of the population has private health insurance notwithstanding that we have a very high quality health system (at least in terms of the medical care available - it''s low quality in terms of reliability and speed of access, and in terms of the administrative structures).

 

[NewEnglandLady]

Delster, you''re such a sweetheart--between all of your thesis work and the LIW excitement

it''s a bit awe-inspiring to see you so interested in things like health care, haha. I''ve actually been pretty interested in Ireland''s economy as a whole over the past several years with so much growth and SO much education--you guys are considered the most educated country on the planet right now, haha--is a PhD equivalent to a high school diploma over there? (I''m kidding..kind of, haha).

 

[Delster]

Aw you're too sweet with your compliments! Thank you for noticing. There has been the odd comment in the LIW forum about the LIW being out of control or whatnot and I've sometimes thought 'hey, now, some of us try real hard to be positive!' Even with all our LIW suspense angst

Date: 6/13/2008 11:34:16 AM
Author: NewEnglandLady
Delster, you're such a sweetheart--between all of your thesis work and the LIW excitement

it's a bit awe-inspiring to see you so interested in things like health care, haha. I've actually been pretty interested in Ireland's economy as a whole over the past several years with so much growth and SO much education--you guys are considered the most educated country on the planet right now, haha--is a PhD equivalent to a high school diploma over there? (I'm kidding..kind of, haha).

Sadly, I wouldn't be!!! BF has only ONE close friend who doesn't have a PhD. Of my closest friends, there is a diagnostic radiographer, an actuary, several university lecturers at various stages of that career, and of course, quite a few lawyers, most with multiple degrees. I have three degrees already and PhD will make four. It's kind of crazy. My Mam was commenting one day on how the job she did straight out of school would require a degree in business now and would probably be called an 'executive payroll administrator' or something. And she's right.

It's two extremes here I think - either get a trade and make a LOT of money quick, or go to uni and stay there until you have a masters. The former are the ones who made a lot of money through the boom (much more than the over-educated uni-goers) are they beginning to suffer as work dries up now the housing boom driven economy is slowing down, and the latter are finding that the big money jobs they were hoping to get just aren't there, and they need to lower their expectations.

Oh and I should be interested in healthcare - that's what the thesis is on! And I seriously will start a thread one of these days, when I feel up to the standard of debate you guys expect. I'm not just there yet. But I reckon if I can hold my on with the posters in here, I should be safe in my viva!

 

[Delster]

Date: 6/10/2008 5:45:13 AM
Author: Delster

This is a very enjoyable debate and a very unusual one to someone looking through the filter of living in a high income tax state. We have a huge constitutional referendum about a new EU treaty coming up on Thursday and one of they key issues the ''No'' campaign is actually focusing on is that the new treaty may give the EU the right to level Europe-wide taxes. Interesting stuff for sure.

And it''s a NO... I thought as much would happen.

 

[katamari]

On the issue of ''who are the dirty workers''. Research finds that marginalized populations in any area do the work that privileged people don''t want to do. (if interested, look up split-labor market or queueing theory). In some areas it is immigrants, in some it is ethnic minorities, in some it is youth, etc.