Trump makes campaign pledge to eliminate fed income tax on tips earned.

Removing taxes on tips is a good baby step towards removing income taxes altogether IMO.

Libertarians are really, really bad at enjoying gnawing the bone they were thrown so much they don't notice that no further steps are being taken in the direction they were promised that we would all go.
 
The fact that they can be prosecuted for violating our laws makes it obvious that they are subject to our jurisdiction. They don't need to consent to be subjected. Or do you think that an illegal immigrant who commits a crime has a perfectly good defense: "Hey, I am an invader, so you have no jurisdiction to try me." Get real.
Reality is if subjects attempt to evade it is difficult to locate or prosecute for violent crimes as are not using a real name, Best to keep em out.
 
The fact that they can be prosecuted for violating our laws makes it obvious that they are subject to our jurisdiction. They don't need to consent to be subjected. Or do you think that an illegal immigrant who commits a crime has a perfectly good defense: "Hey, I am an invader, so you have no jurisdiction to try me." Get real.
Even Ron says they are outlaws and don't count:

http://archive.is/HW9aj

MR. RUSSERT: You say you're a strict constructionist of the Constitution, and yet you want to amend the Constitution to say that children born here should not automatically be U.S. citizens.
REP. PAUL: Well, amending the Constitution is constitutional. What's a--what's the contradiction there?
MR. RUSSERT: So in the Constitution as written, you want to amend?
REP. PAUL: Well, that's constitutional, to do it. Besides, it was the 14th Amendment. It wasn't in the original Constitution. And there's a, there's a confusion on interpretation. In the early years, it was never interpreted that way, and it's still confusing because people--individuals are supposed to have birthright citizenship if they're under the jurisdiction of the government. And somebody who illegally comes in this country as a drug dealer, is he under the jurisdiction and their children deserve citizenship? I think it's awfully, awfully confusing, and, and I, I--matter of fact, I have a bill to change that as well as a Constitutional amendment to clarify it.



 
The fact that they can be prosecuted for violating our laws makes it obvious that they are subject to our jurisdiction. They don't need to consent to be subjected. Or do you think that an illegal immigrant who commits a crime has a perfectly good defense: "Hey, I am an invader, so you have no jurisdiction to try me." Get real.

Even Ron says they are outlaws and don't count:

http://archive.is/HW9aj

MR. RUSSERT: You say you're a strict constructionist of the Constitution, and yet you want to amend the Constitution to say that children born here should not automatically be U.S. citizens.
REP. PAUL: Well, amending the Constitution is constitutional. What's a--what's the contradiction there?
MR. RUSSERT: So in the Constitution as written, you want to amend?
REP. PAUL: Well, that's constitutional, to do it. Besides, it was the 14th Amendment. It wasn't in the original Constitution. And there's a, there's a confusion on interpretation. In the early years, it was never interpreted that way, and it's still confusing because people--individuals are supposed to have birthright citizenship if they're under the jurisdiction of the government. And somebody who illegally comes in this country as a drug dealer, is he under the jurisdiction and their children deserve citizenship? I think it's awfully, awfully confusing, and, and I, I--matter of fact, I have a bill to change that as well as a Constitutional amendment to clarify it.




What effect does a citizen child have on whether a jurisdiction can arrest and charge an alien? I don't get it.
 
What effect does a citizen child have on whether a jurisdiction can arrest and charge an alien? I don't get it.

The child is not a citizen if the outlaw invaders do not subject themselves to our jurisdiction by following our border laws, that's the point.
 
The child is not a citizen if the outlaw invaders do not subject themselves to our jurisdiction by following our border laws, that's the point.

I don't subject myself to the highway patrol's jurisdiction by following all their laws. I wish your "logic" worked on them.
 
I don't subject myself to the highway patrol's jurisdiction by following all their laws. I wish your "logic" worked on them.

You are a citizen and subject to the jurisdiction of all Constitutional laws, you were presumably born here and in any case you are here legally.

They are foreign invaders whose very presence is illegal, they are not subject to our jurisdiction in their home countries, and they did not subject themselves to it when they entered our territory, they are outlaws.
 
You are a citizen and subject to the jurisdiction of all Constitutional laws, you were presumably born here and in any case you are here legally.

They are foreign invaders whose very presence is illegal, they are not subject to our jurisdiction in their home countries, and they did not subject themselves to it when they entered our territory, they are outlaws.

You're spamming with circular arguments.
Congratulations. You just invented circular spam.
 
That is the law.
It was interpreted that way until it was changed by an unconstitutional executive order.

I'll repost a portion of an article from the Wall Street Journal:

In Plyler v. Doe (1982)—a case regarding the public schooling of children who were brought to the country illegally—the court stated that “no plausible distinction with respect to Fourteenth Amendment ‘jurisdiction’ can be drawn between resident aliens whose entry into the United States was lawful, and resident aliens whose entry was unlawful.” James C. Ho, whom President Trump nominated and Congress confirmed to serve on the Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, wrote in 2006 about the Plyler decision, saying that all nine justices “reached that conclusion precisely because illegal aliens are ‘subject to the jurisdiction’ of the U.S., no less than legal aliens and U.S. citizens.”

Although Plyler involved the Equal Protection Clause's phrase "within its jurisdiction" and not the birthright clause's "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" the Court noted in footnote 10 that the latter is not more restrictive than the former:

Although we have not previously focused on the intended meaning of this phrase, we have had occasion to examine the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment, which provides that "[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States. . . ." (Emphasis added.) Justice Gray, writing for the Court in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U. S. 649 (1898), detailed at some length the history of the Citizenship Clause, and the predominantly geographic sense in which the term "jurisdiction" was used. He further noted that it was "impossible to construe the words 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof,' in the opening sentence [of the Fourteenth Amendment], as less comprehensive than the words 'within its jurisdiction,' in the concluding sentence of the same section; or to hold that persons 'within the jurisdiction' of one of the States of the Union are not 'subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.'"
Id. at 169 U. S. 687.

Justice Gray concluded that "[e]very citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States." Id. at 169 U. S. 693. As one early commentator noted, given the historical emphasis on geographic territoriality, bounded only, if at all, by principles of sovereignty and allegiance, no plausible distinction with respect to Fourteenth Amendment "jurisdiction" can be drawn between resident aliens whose entry into the United States was lawful, and resident aliens whose entry was unlawful. See C. Bouve, Exclusion and Expulsion of Aliens in the United States 425-427 (1912).

You may think SCOTUS got it wrong in Plyer but its decision is still the law. An executive order had nothing to do with it.
 
I'll repost a portion of an article from the Wall Street Journal:



Although Plyler involved the Equal Protection Clause's phrase "within its jurisdiction" and not the birthright clause's "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" the Court noted in footnote 10 that the latter is not more restrictive than the former:



You may think SCOTUS got it wrong in Plyer but its decision is still the law. An executive order had nothing to do with it.

And so was Dredd Scott.

It's the agreed lie and it can be overturned.
 
https://x.com/ksorbs/status/1822464812300812478

Who plagiarized whom?

Thanks Ron Paul: ‘No Taxes on Tips’ is pure libertarian populism
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H16UAvme7P8
{Jack Hunter | 11 August 2024}

Ron Paul’s ‘No Taxes on Tips’ for servers in 2008 and 2012 was pure libertarian populism.

That's why Donald Trump and Kamala Harris are now campaigning on it too.



//
 
IMG_2530.jpeg
 
How about eliminating the fed income tax altogether?

Unlikely. But if candidates are going to be offering income tax cuts around the edges, why not start with social security? The money confiscated from workers which goes into social security is taxed before it goes in (at least the part confiscated from workers). When it's taxed as it's paid out to retirees, it's income that's being double-taxed. Have Trump commit to those cuts so that he's got the retiree vote locked up. Then Kamela will make the same commitment - and maybe it'll actually happen.
 
Unlikely. But if candidates are going to be offering income tax cuts around the edges, why not start with social security? The money confiscated from workers which goes into social security is taxed before it goes in (at least the part confiscated from workers). When it's taxed as it's paid out to retirees, it's income that's being double-taxed. Have Trump commit to those cuts so that he's got the retiree vote locked up. Then Kamela will make the same commitment - and maybe it'll actually happen.
Trump has said he will end taxation of SS benefits.
 
Trump has said he will end taxation of SS benefits.

I've got two reactions to that:

1) I'm very much a fiscal conservative. If I haven't heard that played up, then do you think most social security recipients have? The trump campaign needs to play that up - get it published in the monthly AARP rag.

2) Why didn't he do it in the first two years of his first term when he had control of both Houses of Congress?
 
I've got two reactions to that:

1) I'm very much a fiscal conservative. If I haven't heard that played up, then do you think most social security recipients have? The trump campaign needs to play that up - get it published in the monthly AARP rag.

2) Why didn't he do it in the first two years of his first term when he had control of both Houses of Congress?
AARP is a leftist organization, they will not post anything in favor of Trump.

Trump never had control of Congress, RINOs like McCain thwarted him at every turn, like with the O'Bummercare repeal.


[h=1]Trump Announces Plan to Eliminate Taxes on Social Security Checks[/h]
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/20...-plan-eliminate-taxes-social-security-checks/
 
Back
Top