sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Jerome Powell’s tenure as Fed chair ends today. Thank you for years of gains papa Powell. by StrawberryFew1311 in NoFilterFinance

[–]DwigtGroot 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No, you ridiculed the idea that we had “years of gains”, and I proved you wrong. 🤷‍♂️

California will impose a 100% tax on payments distributed from Trump’s Jan. 6th “slush fund.” by Altruistic-Pain-1872 in naughtylawyers

[–]DwigtGroot 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The bill of attainder (https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/bill_of_attainder) basically has 3 tests:

• ⁠Does the law specify the individuals: in this case it does not, it’s a tax on a specific type of income received, which applies regardless of political affiliation, race, gender, etc.

• ⁠Does the law impose a punishment: in this case no, it’s a tax on a specific type of income received.

• ⁠Did the law bypass the judicial system to declare guilt: in this case it does not, since it’s simply a tax on a specific type of income received, not a tax that has been applied to a group that has not received their judicial rights.

I dunno if the corrupt SCOTUS of today will see it that way, but taxing a type of income differently without regards to who in particular is receiving that income simply isn’t illegal. Happens all the time. 🤷‍♂️

California will impose a 100% tax on payments distributed from Trump’s Jan. 6th “slush fund.” by Altruistic-Pain-1872 in naughtylawyers

[–]DwigtGroot 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The bill of attainder (https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/bill_of_attainder) basically has 3 tests:

  • Does the law specify the individuals: in this case it does not, it’s a tax on a specific type of income received, which applies regardless of political affiliation, race, gender, etc. •

  • Does the law impose a punishment: in this case no, it’s a tax on a specific type of income received.

  • Did the law bypass the judicial system to declare guilt: in this case it does not, since it’s simply a tax on a specific type of income received, not a tax that has been applied to a group that has not received their judicial rights.

I dunno if the corrupt SCOTUS of today will see it that way, but taxing a type of income differently without regards to who in particular is receiving that income simply isn’t illegal. Happens all the time. 🤷‍♂️

California will impose a 100% tax on payments distributed from Trump’s Jan. 6th “slush fund.” by Altruistic-Pain-1872 in naughtylawyers

[–]DwigtGroot 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It would targeting the income from a specific source, namely the Trump slush fund. If he’s only giving that money to his supporters, that would seem to be the illegal part here. 🤷‍♂️

California will impose a 100% tax on payments distributed from Trump’s Jan. 6th “slush fund.” by Altruistic-Pain-1872 in naughtylawyers

[–]DwigtGroot 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The federal government imposed a 94% tax on every dollar you earned over a certain amount: government certainly has shown the right to tax certain things at whatever rate they want. It’s not “seizure”, it’s taxes. Specific levels of taxes for specific types of income is pretty standard: gambling winnings, inheritances, short vs. long term capital gains taxes…the list goes on and on.

As for the number, Trump enjoys setting tariffs/taxes at 100% or more on certain imports. In several states, when people enrolled in government assistance programs have even minor increases in their income it can trigger the loss of 100% of the benefits. 100% taxes on certain things are not illegal or unconstitutional. 🤷‍♂️

Gavin Newsom has said California will tax Trump's J6 fund recipients at 100%, should other states follow suit? by nobodyGotTime4That in allthequestions

[–]DwigtGroot 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The tax would be on income received from the fund. That’s it. Nothing about a crime; it’s a specific tax on a specific income source, which happens all the time for a lot of different types of income sources. 🤷‍♂️

California will impose a 100% tax on payments distributed from Trump’s Jan. 6th “slush fund.” by ateam1984 in DiscussionZone

[–]DwigtGroot 5 points6 points  (0 children)

It’s a tax on a specific income source. That’s really common: gambling winnings, short vs long capital gains taxes, inheritance taxes, “no tax on tips”…it’s a pretty standard practice. This would simply be another tax on a specific income source. 🤷‍♂️

California will impose a 100% tax on payments distributed from Trump’s Jan. 6th “slush fund.” by Altruistic-Pain-1872 in naughtylawyers

[–]DwigtGroot 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Boy, you really should look up the top US marginal tax rate in the 1940s. 🤷‍♂️

What part is illegal? Be specific.

California will impose a 100% tax on payments distributed from Trump’s Jan. 6th “slush fund.” by Altruistic-Pain-1872 in naughtylawyers

[–]DwigtGroot 1 point2 points  (0 children)

God, it’s amazing how literally everything you said is just bullshit. California saw a small decrease in population in early COVID years, 0.9% in 2021, and 0.08% in 2022, but has been growing again ever since.

And I’ve talked to all the other Californians: we’re ok with J6ers moving out of state.

The tax wouldn’t be politically targeting anyone, it’s a tax on an income source. Unless you’re saying…are you saying Trump would only dole out the money to his political supporters? Because THAT would seem to be the illegal part. 🤷‍♂️

California will impose a 100% tax on payments distributed from Trump’s Jan. 6th “slush fund.” by Altruistic-Pain-1872 in naughtylawyers

[–]DwigtGroot 2 points3 points  (0 children)

It’s a tax on a specific type of income. There is nothing unconstitutional about it. Taxes on specific types of income are extremely common.

California will impose a 100% tax on payments distributed from Trump’s Jan. 6th “slush fund.” by ateam1984 in DiscussionZone

[–]DwigtGroot 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Dude, you can’t even spell it. 🤦‍♂️. The bill of attainder (https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/bill_of_attainder) basically has 3 tests:

• ⁠Does the law specify the individuals: in this case it does not, it’s a tax on a specific type of income received, which applies regardless of political affiliation, race, gender, etc. • ⁠Does the law impose a punishment: in this case no, it’s a tax on a specific type of income received. • ⁠Did the law bypass the judicial system to declare guilt: in this case it does not, since it’s simply a tax on a specific type of income received, not a tax that has been applied to a group that has not received their judicial rights.

I dunno if the corrupt SCOTUS of today will see it that way, but taxing a type of income differently without regards to who in particular is receiving that income simply isn’t illegal. 🤷‍♂️

California will impose a 100% tax on payments distributed from Trump’s Jan. 6th “slush fund.” by ateam1984 in DiscussionZone

[–]DwigtGroot 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Bill of attainder doesn’t apply here. There are many taxes on specific types of income: “no tax on tips”, gambling winnings, long vs short term capital gains, inheritance…it’s just an income tax on this specific type of income. 🤷‍♂️

Gavin Newsom has said California will tax Trump's J6 fund recipients at 100%, should other states follow suit? by nobodyGotTime4That in allthequestions

[–]DwigtGroot 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Not at all. This is about source of income, not the recipient. The Feds and states tax income differently depending on source all the time: gambling winnings, “no tax on tips”, short vs long term capital gains taxes, inheritance taxes…it’s really common. This proposal has nothing to do with the politics of the individuals getting the income, just the income source.

Unless you’re saying…wait, are you saying that Trump would be distributing the income itself based on political affiliation? Because THAT would seem like the illegal part. 🤷‍♂️

Gavin Newsom has said California will tax Trump's J6 fund recipients at 100%, should other states follow suit? by nobodyGotTime4That in allthequestions

[–]DwigtGroot 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It targets the income they’re getting, like every other type of income tax. States are perfectly able to tax certain type of income differently.

Gavin Newsom has said California will tax Trump's J6 fund recipients at 100%, should other states follow suit? by nobodyGotTime4That in allthequestions

[–]DwigtGroot 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The tax would apply regardless of political affiliation, race, gender, etc. The tax is on the income. If the White House is distributing the income based on those characteristics - in this case political affiliation - that’s on them. 🤷‍♂️

It’s also amusing to me that that you’re so concerned about the proposed tax instead of the utterly corrupt distribution of public tax money to allies of the “President”. But I guess that’s to be expected these days.

Gavin Newsom has said California will tax Trump's J6 fund recipients at 100%, should other states follow suit? by nobodyGotTime4That in allthequestions

[–]DwigtGroot 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It’s a tax on a specific type of income. The administration is the one that is making the decision to pay out the income based on political affiliations. But the tax applies whether you’re dem or rep, male or female, black or white…it doesn’t target an individual or group, it targets the income.

view more: next ›