Fluffypants Posted May 29 Report Posted May 29 No matter what you think of the 1.8 billion dollar fund for those who were targeted by the Biden Administration for political reasons, this is crazy stuff. I would love to see how you circle the square on this. In New Jersey and New York a couple legislatures are putting bills together to "tax" any money they get from that fund at 100%. You could take those couple of legislators and think they are crazy and there is no way this passes but when Gavin Newsome comes and promises they will tax any money from anyone in California that gets any of that money at 100% is the most bat shit crazy thing Ive ever heard and HIGHLY unconstitutional. If is this is allowed to stand you could say if your on welfare and get any refund from the IRS we are going to tax that at 100%. https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/5899606-california-newsom-trump-fund-tax/ Quote
robosmith Posted May 29 Report Posted May 29 Top Ten Reasons the Trump Slush Fund is ILLEGAL from a Constitutional Law Professor. AKA The schemes to tax it pale in comparison to the illegality of the slush fund itself. Quote
Fluffypants Posted May 29 Author Report Posted May 29 4 minutes ago, robosmith said: Top Ten Reasons the Trump Slush Fund is ILLEGAL from a Constitutional Law Professor. AKA The schemes to tax it pale in comparison to the illegality of the slush fund itself. Thats for the courts to decide not states and not your random college professor and he/she/its powerpoint. They can't just steal money because they don't like the fund. Quote
Nationalist Posted May 29 Report Posted May 29 (edited) 15 minutes ago, robosmith said: Top Ten Reasons the Trump Slush Fund is ILLEGAL from a Constitutional Law Professor. AKA The schemes to tax it pale in comparison to the illegality of the slush fund itself. I hope Trump gets to disperse the funds and waive it all under your noses. You twats really thought you could turn the justice system into a weapon and get away with it...didn't ya. Dumb fcks. Edited May 29 by Nationalist Quote Its so lonely in m'saddle since m'horse died.
robosmith Posted May 29 Report Posted May 29 1 hour ago, Fluffypants said: Thats for the courts to decide not states and not your random college professor and he/she/its powerpoint. They can't just steal money because they don't like the fund. It's Trump who is stealing the money. Did you not read the reasons or just not understand them? LMAO Government funds MUST be authorized by Congress. Duh What if Trump decided he should get a $1.8 Trillion slush fund? You'd give it to him, right. 🤮 Quote
Fluffypants Posted May 29 Author Report Posted May 29 4 minutes ago, robosmith said: It's Trump who is stealing the money. Did you not read the reasons or just not understand them? LMAO Government funds MUST be authorized by Congress. Duh What if Trump decided he should get a $1.8 Trillion slush fund? You'd give it to him, right. 🤮 Again Robo the courts will decide if its legal or not. I don't care about your power point. The legality on Trumps part isn't what the discussion is about its whether or not states can seize all the money calling it tax because they don't agree with the source. Quote
robosmith Posted May 29 Report Posted May 29 5 minutes ago, Fluffypants said: Again Robo the courts will decide if its legal or not. I don't care about your power point. The legality on Trumps part isn't what the discussion is about its whether or not states can seize all the money calling it tax because they don't agree with the source. Since the source is ILLEGAL, the states can take it just like if it were STOLEN from a BANK. Quote
User Posted May 29 Report Posted May 29 4 minutes ago, robosmith said: Since the source is ILLEGAL, the states can take it just like if it were STOLEN from a BANK. LOL, States do not get to arbitrarily say money is illegal and then tax it. Clown. 1 Quote
gatomontes99 Posted May 29 Report Posted May 29 2 hours ago, Fluffypants said: No matter what you think of the 1.8 billion dollar fund for those who were targeted by the Biden Administration for political reasons, this is crazy stuff. I would love to see how you circle the square on this. In New Jersey and New York a couple legislatures are putting bills together to "tax" any money they get from that fund at 100%. You could take those couple of legislators and think they are crazy and there is no way this passes but when Gavin Newsome comes and promises they will tax any money from anyone in California that gets any of that money at 100% is the most bat shit crazy thing Ive ever heard and HIGHLY unconstitutional. If is this is allowed to stand you could say if your on welfare and get any refund from the IRS we are going to tax that at 100%. https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/5899606-california-newsom-trump-fund-tax/ All they are doing is proving that it was law-fare. What they are doing is blatantly unconstitutional. Quote Don't you think that if I were wrong that I would know it?
herbie Posted May 29 Report Posted May 29 10 legal reasons mean noting against the Divine Right of Kinga 1 Quote
Fluffypants Posted May 29 Author Report Posted May 29 1 hour ago, herbie said: 10 legal reasons mean noting against the Divine Right of Kinga This isn't a debate about the legality of the fund. Its can states tax something 100% because they are against it. The courts will decide on the legality of fund. There is already a thread about that. The argument is its ok because the fund is illegal is stupid considering it hasn't been deemed so by anyone who matters. Quote
gatomontes99 Posted May 30 Report Posted May 30 The 5th amendment has a "takings clause." It prevents taking private property, just because. A tax is always a portion. A 100% confiscation is not a tax. Quote Don't you think that if I were wrong that I would know it?
herbie Posted May 30 Report Posted May 30 It's never a debate about legality when Trump does anything. Laws don't apply to him, right? Quote
Fluffypants Posted May 30 Author Report Posted May 30 20 minutes ago, gatomontes99 said: The 5th amendment has a "takings clause." It prevents taking private property, just because. A tax is always a portion. A 100% confiscation is not a tax. It would set a dangerous precedent that can be used against unpopular policies on the other side of the aisle too Quote
User Posted May 30 Report Posted May 30 2 minutes ago, herbie said: It's never a debate about legality when Trump does anything. Laws don't apply to him, right? And yet he operates in the bounds of the law every day. Quote
Fluffypants Posted May 30 Author Report Posted May 30 2 minutes ago, herbie said: It's never a debate about legality when Trump does anything. Laws don't apply to him, right? Its not about the legality because they are pushing forward before its deemed illegal. They gonna snatch that cash whether its legal or not. Quote
gatomontes99 Posted May 30 Report Posted May 30 4 hours ago, robosmith said: It's Trump who is stealing the money. From who? Quote Don't you think that if I were wrong that I would know it?
CdnFox Posted May 30 Report Posted May 30 11 hours ago, Fluffypants said: No matter what you think of the 1.8 billion dollar fund for those who were targeted by the Biden Administration for political reasons, this is crazy stuff. I would love to see how you circle the square on this. In New Jersey and New York a couple legislatures are putting bills together to "tax" any money they get from that fund at 100%. You could take those couple of legislators and think they are crazy and there is no way this passes but when Gavin Newsome comes and promises they will tax any money from anyone in California that gets any of that money at 100% is the most bat shit crazy thing Ive ever heard and HIGHLY unconstitutional. If is this is allowed to stand you could say if your on welfare and get any refund from the IRS we are going to tax that at 100%. https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/5899606-california-newsom-trump-fund-tax/ Interesting to watch but I think it's likely grandstanding Quote "That which doesn't kill me... Had better start running."
robosmith Posted May 30 Report Posted May 30 (edited) 7 hours ago, Fluffypants said: This isn't a debate about the legality of the fund. Its can states tax something 100% because they are against it. The courts will decide on the legality of fund. There is already a thread about that. The argument is its ok because the fund is illegal is stupid considering it hasn't been deemed so by anyone who matters. Pretending ILLEGALY acquired cash cannot be confiscated by a state. LMAO Edited May 30 by robosmith Quote
robosmith Posted May 30 Report Posted May 30 6 hours ago, gatomontes99 said: The 5th amendment has a "takings clause." It prevents taking private property, just because. A tax is always a portion. A 100% confiscation is not a tax. Let us know when you pass the bar and are licensed to practice law. Until then, your amateur legal OPINIONS mean NOTHING. You can't even do legal research to cite an EXPERT. LMAO Quote
gatomontes99 Posted May 30 Report Posted May 30 4 hours ago, robosmith said: Let us know when you pass the bar and are licensed to practice law. Until then, your amateur legal OPINIONS mean NOTHING. You can't even do legal research to cite an EXPERT. LMAO Sept 3, 2003. 1 1 Quote Don't you think that if I were wrong that I would know it?
Nationalist Posted May 30 Report Posted May 30 (edited) What these jack-asses have forgotten is, an elephant never forgets. Or forgives. Edited May 31 by Nationalist 1 Quote Its so lonely in m'saddle since m'horse died.
User Posted May 30 Report Posted May 30 12 hours ago, robosmith said: Pretending ILLEGALY acquired cash cannot be confiscated by a state. LMAO It can't be arbitrarily confiscated. Stop playing dumb for once in your life. 12 hours ago, robosmith said: Let us know when you pass the bar and are licensed to practice law. Until then, your amateur legal OPINIONS mean NOTHING. You can't even do legal research to cite an EXPERT. LMAO Then why are you here commenting on anything? Clown. Quote
robosmith Posted May 30 Report Posted May 30 10 hours ago, gatomontes99 said: Sept 3, 2003. The Fifth Amendment Takings Clause Quote Any time some private party could seek a court order stopping another private party from engaging in harmful activities, the government can impose the same limitations through fines and court orders without a duty to compensate. Numerous court cases have already been filed. Quote
gatomontes99 Posted May 30 Report Posted May 30 52 minutes ago, robosmith said: The Fifth Amendment Takings Clause Numerous court cases have already been filed. All that proves is that your side is very willing to engage in legal action. That says nothing about the constitutionality of a 100% tax. 1 Quote Don't you think that if I were wrong that I would know it?
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.