Thread: Equal Protection Under the Law.

Municipal, State, Federal?
Can we narrow this down?
NORE: I'm not an accountant.

Originally Posted by USCitizen

Municipal, State, Federal?
Can we narrow this down?
NORE: I'm not an accountant.

It doesn't matter if it's at state, local, or federal. The arguments on the other subjects apply across all echelons of government.

Originally Posted by fishjoel

It doesn't matter if it's at state, local, or federal. The arguments on the other subjects apply across all echelons of government.

They don't.
A local business, after starting to show a reasonable profit, may be asked to contribute more simply to ease access or beautify the area as long as that tax is properly collected and actually increases business to a propertion to the business.
A business should not be required to offer more than the minimum amount of taxes that will put it out of business as that is counter-productive.

The further away from the business the tax travels the less likely I am in favor of a progressive tax just for the sake of taxation, for instance, Marginal Utility.
The more important aspect of profit is employment and sales of a local, regional and international scale; that's good for eveyone.

I am presuming business personel and operations on US soil manned by American citiziens and legal immigrants.

Originally Posted by USCitizen

They don't.
A local business, after starting to show a reasonable profit, may be asked to contribute more simply to ease access or beautify the area as long as that tax is properly collected and actually increases business to a propertion to the business.
A business should not be required to offer more than the minimum amount of taxes that will put it out of business as that is counter-productive.

The further away from the business the tax travels the less likely I am in favor of a progressive tax just for the sake of taxation, for instance, Marginal Utility.
The more important aspect of profit is employment and sales of a local, regional and international scale; that's good for eveyone.

I am presuming business personel and operations on US soil manned by American citiziens and legal immigrants.

Why should someone be discriminated against and forced to pay more? How does that jive with the equal protection argument that is used in the other subjects? I'm not asking what justifies progressive tax rates, in general. I'm asking specifically of the liberalish posters why equal protection applies in cases such as homosexual marriage but not in tax policies. How do you justify the contradiction?

Originally Posted by fishjoel

Why should someone be discriminated against and forced to pay more? How does that jive with the equal protection argument that is used in the other subjects? I'm not asking what justifies progressive tax rates, in general. I'm asking specifically of the liberalish posters why equal protection applies in cases such as homosexual marriage but not in tax policies. How do you justify the contradiction?

Is taxation covered under EP or General Welfare?
I presume EP would be physical assault, prison, not paying taxes.

Originally Posted by USCitizen

Is taxation covered under EP or General Welfare?
I presume EP would be physical assault, prison, not paying taxes.

I homosexuality covered under EP?

Originally Posted by fishjoel

...

Riddle me this batman/liberal posters.....

How do you justify your position of supporting progressive tax rates? What you're doing is singling out a certain class of people based on their socioeconomic status. If you really want equal protection then you would support a flat tax, for everyone. It doesn't matter if you're living under the poverty line or not, equal is equal. If there can be laws that discriminate in this case than why not others?

I'll standby and await some kind of justification.

Equal protection boils down to "similarly situated, similarly treated".
Treating one legally married couple differently than another, because one couple is gay is not equal protection with a valid public purpose.
Because discriminating against people based on their sexual orientation is not a valid public purpose.



Every taxpayer faces the same tax rates, so much on the first $10,000, so much on the next $10,000, etc.
If there is a tax of 50% on income over 1 million dollars, it applies equally to the person who makes $50,000/year and the person that makes 50 million/year.

Originally Posted by USCitizen

A business should not be required to offer more than the minimum amount of taxes that will put it out of business as that is counter-productive.

Um, was that a Freudian slip?

Originally Posted by USCitizen

Is taxation covered under EP or General Welfare?

No.

Originally Posted by goober

Equal protection boils down to "similarly situated, similarly treated".
If there is a tax of 50% on income over 1 million dollars, it applies equally to the person who makes $50,000/year and the person that makes 50 million/year.

If there is an allowance for men to marry a consenting woman, it applies equally to the man who likes women and to the man who likes men or chickens or Democrats. The illogic applies equally.

I actually have no objection to gay marriage, so I'm not disparaging gays in the least - I disdain hypocrisy (including it's milder, less self-serving cousin, inconsistency) no matter what the source.

Originally Posted by goober

Equal protection boils down to "similarly situated, similarly treated".
Treating one legally married couple differently than another, because one couple is gay is not equal protection with a valid public purpose.
Because discriminating against people based on their sexual orientation is not a valid public purpose.

So what you're saying is that equal protection only applies to who you pick and choose it to be applied to.

Every taxpayer faces the same tax rates, so much on the first $10,000, so much on the next $10,000, etc.
If there is a tax of 50% on income over 1 million dollars, it applies equally to the person who makes $50,000/year and the person that makes 50 million/year.

This is an invalid statement as people have what they have. If someone has over a million dollars than they have over a million dollars, they do not have $10K. Basically your statement is based on "ifs" and "buts" and not reality. The reality is that people that earn the bottom 50%ish don't pay any federal taxes while the rest pay. That is not equal protection under the law because you are singling out higher earners for monetary penalties.

Come to think of it, that's much more discriminating than no allowing homosexuals to marry. What would the outrage be if we fined people for being homosexual?

the reason is simple
simulated gay sex on the street during parades good
rich evil and should be punished

Seems to me that EP is applied to what people do to people, and not applied to what goverment does to people.

Originally Posted by goober

Equal protection boils down to "similarly situated, similarly treated".
Treating one legally married couple differently than another, because one couple is gay is not equal protection with a valid public purpose.
Because discriminating against people based on their sexual orientation is not a valid public purpose.

That is SO untrue. Gays are NOT similarly situated and the public purpose is procreation.

Originally Posted by fishjoel

How do you justify your position of supporting progressive tax rates?

Great thread fishjoel! Don't forget other socially acceptable variations of non-equal protection:

1. BEHAVIOR/ABILITY DISCRIMINATION
- handicap parking
- special education (~ 10-30 x $/student)
- pedophiles (consensual)
- criminals (voting & guns)
- blind (driving licenses)
- drunk drivers (license revoked)
- denied loans just because of inability to pay
- Welfare
- Social Security (Long Term Disability)
- Medicaid
- Gay Marriage
- Necrophilia Marriage (non-living discrimination)
- Polygamy
- Bestiality Marriage


2. AGE DISCRIMINATION
- Voting
- Retirement
- Social Security (Retirement)
- drivers license
- buying alcohol
- running for office
- consent in marriage
- consent in sex (pedophiles)


3. SEX DISCRIMINATION
- Father's award of joint physical custody
- Violance Against Women's Act
- Selective Service
- Planned Parenting (Men's Health)
- Registry for Sex Offenders
- WIC (Women, Infant, Children)
- Prison Population

4. FINANCIAL DISCRIMINATION
- progressive tax rates
- means testing for Social Security, Medicare, financial aid for college
- denied loans just because of inability to pay


5. RACIAL DISCRIMINATION
- MLB (% of Whites)
- NBA (% of Whites)
- NFL (% of Whites)
- BET (Black Entertainment Television)
- NAACP (National Association for the Advancement of Colored People)

Discrimination or discernment has become a destroyed concept. Discrimination/Discernment is good like in recognizing UNEQUAL ABILITY/BEHAVIOR ought to result in different treatment such as denial of loans, drivers licenses to blind and gay marriage.