And they are going to be furious if he wins. He might as well not be running in the area where I live. It's thumbs up for Obama everywhere.
My neighbors all see through Romney.
May I point out if you are talking to Fox News repeaters today, the "income tax" is just that, a tax on income, not on people. That's why the rich are supposed to pay much more per person than the middle class or poor. It is not a tax on them personally. It is a tax on their income.
Amendment XVI
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxvi
If it isn't clear enough when it grants to Congress the "power to lay and collect taxes on incomes," that part about "without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration," makes it very clear that our Congress has the power to impose taxes not per person but per how much income you make. That is what authorizes Congress to impose progressive taxes, i.e., higher taxes on higher incomes and lower to no taxes on lower incomes.
Also from the Cornell website:
income tax law: an overview
In 1913, the Sixteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was ratified. It empowered Congress to tax "incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration." The Internal Revenue Code is today embodied as Title 26 of the United States Code (26 U.S.C.) and is a lineal descendant of the income tax act passed in 1913, following ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment. While some states do not have an income tax (Nevada), all residents and all citizens of the United States are subject to the federal income tax. Not everyone, however, must file a return. The requirements for filing are found in 26 U.S.C. § 6011. As the largest contributor, its purpose is to generate revenue for the federal budget. In 1985 for example, the government collected over $450 billion in income tax from a total of $742 billion in total internal revenue receipts. The funds collected are essential for the shaping and preservation of a free market economy.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/income_tax
More about the history of progressive taxes:
The earliest known application of progressive taxation took place in Great Britain in the 14th century.[13] In the United States, the first progressive income tax was established by the Revenue Act of 1862, which was signed into law by President Abraham Lincoln and repealed the short-lived flat tax contained in the Revenue Act of 1861.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_tax
Republicans like to take credit for President Lincoln's other contributions to our history and law. Seems to me they should love equal rights AND PROGRESSIVE TAXATION. Or do they not like President Lincoln as much as they sometimes claim?
If you need to explain why we have progressive taxes, here are some blogs that might give you good ideas.
http://lanekenworthy.net/2011/04/02/are-progressive-income-taxes-fair/
And more good explanations:
Efficiency. What is the optimal amount of public goods and services the government should provide? If the government creates a rule that says everyone must pay an equal share of their income, revenue will be restricted to the rate that the lowest earning workers can afford to pay.
Consider the case of a married couple with drastically different earnings. One spouse earns $40,000 per year, while the other earns $400,000 a year. If the couple goes Dutch, they will restrict their shared consumption. However, if the couple adopts a rule that the higher earning spouse pays more, then they can enjoy a higher level of shared consumption. This means they will consume a better house, better car, and better lifestyle.
Happiness. Advocates of progressive taxation often say “Rich people can afford to pay more.” What they really mean is that $100 means more to a person making $5,000 a year than it does to a person making $500,000 a year. This means that allowing poor people to keep a larger share of their income will result in a happier society than making everyone pay the same rate.
Justice. If people deserved most of their income, there would be a good case that they should be able to keep it. However, people don’t morally deserve their income because almost everyone’s income results largely from factors beyond their control. For example, the poorest Americans are richer in absolute terms than the richest Indians. This isn’t because Americans are that much more hardworking than Indians, but because Americans have access to a superb set of institutions and a grand scale of specialization and trade within our borders.
http://www.policymic.com/articles/3150/three-simple-reasons-why-we-need-progressive-tax-rates
Bill Gates, for example, earned his money as the organizer and pioneer of Microsoft. He made a big contribution to our country and to our culture. We want to encourage him and other who are creative like him. But . . . . Bill Gates built on knowledge and skills and information that were already available in our society. He used all that to create a company that could make products that were useful to all of us. But so much of the groundwork on computers that led to personal computers and the kinds of user-friendly systems we enjoy was done long before Bill Gates was born. Gates did not pay for the legacy he received from those who had developed the basic concept of the computer. He got that for free, and he also got a society that was peaceful and in which he could sell his ideas for free. When he pays taxes on his money, he helps insure that the society in which he can continue to make money survives.
Mitt Romney -- avoided military service in a time of war (although he "supported" the war) and did not pay his fair share of taxes. What kind of president do you think he would make? Not a good one. That's my opinion.
= new reply since forum marked as read
